Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

[Tamminen]

On the underlying reality:

Today I (1) stood on the platform waiting for the train (2) traveled to the town (3) traveled back home. I think each of these happened in the underlying reality, with the usual meters and seconds available if I wanted to measure things. But if I had wanted to measure things in the other frames from my current frame with my meters and seconds, and do this with high accuracy, I would have noticed that the seconds in the other frames would be longer than my seconds, and the meters shorter than my meters, and this would be the case independent of which frame I would be in. And because this looks a bit paradoxical, I would also have noticed that the relation of simultaneity between frames is not symmetric, and this explains the seeming paradox of all clocks in all other frames running slower. So in SR, compared to Newtonian relativity, we are obliged to map all other frames according to a different kind of coordinate system because of the constancy of light speed in all frames. But all frames belong to the underlying reality with their clocks ticking our usual seconds and their meters measuring lengths in the usual way for those who are “participants” of those frames. So there is no absolute frame representing the underlying reality, and we need no such “ether”, because all frames are equally real.

Just to clear things up for myself. Something wrong with the thoughts above?

[David Cooper]

Reference frame A is not proposing itself to be either B, C, D or E.

Indeed - it is only proposing itself to be frame E (the absolute frame) in addition to itself. All the measurements will be direct representations of the underlying reality if frame A happens to be the absolute frame. As always, this automatic proposal that a frame makes only relates to relevant models.

There is no contradiction in saying that I am moving with respect to frame A and stationary with respect to frame B.

I've told you plenty of times that I have no problem with that - it is not a contradiction.

You have told me that precisely that sentence is a contradiction. Therefore you are contradicting yourself.

No; you're just misremembering. The contradiction only comes in as in a necessary extension of that when you consider both frames to be correct representations of the underlying reality. And I remind you yet again that this business of contradictions is only of interest when we're looking as set 2 models, because it's what destroys those models - that's all we need it for because the other proposed SR models all fail in other ways.

You assert contradictions by incorrectly stating that frame A is proposing itself to also be another frame.

No, it's just part of the picture. All frames propose themselves to be the absolute frame. At location A, frame A analysis tells me that an event at location B hasn't happened yet, but frame B analysis simultaneously tells me that it has happened. That's a contradiction - in the underlying reality the even't has either happened or it hasn't, so one of the frames has produced a true statement and the other has produced a false statement. The form of those statements automatically makes them proposals about an underlying reality. To remove that claim, you have to word them in such a way as to make it clear that they are not such proposals, and then you have one frame's analysis saying that the event is measured to have happened, while the other frame's analysis says that the event is measured not to have happened yet. This wording removes the surface contradiction, but it also admits that they don't necessarily represent the underlying reality correctly. Any attempt to claim that they both represent the underlying reality correctly is destroyed by the contradiction, so it is proven that they do not both represent the underlying reality correctly. With such a binary choice, one of them must be wrong.

This is a technique called reasoning, and it reveals truths which people who don't know how to reason don't find. It destroys set 2 models and tell us that we must look for viable models elsewhere.

In the underlying reality...

(1) clock A can tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A.

(2) clock A cannot tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A.

Pick one of those options if you're a serious participant in the conversation.

Please re-frame this question in terms of a potential measurement. If you cannot do so, then you are not discussing physics. See my earlier post for definitions of the words "while" and "time".

There is a proposed underlying reality regardless of which model you use. This is part of the physics - indeed, it's the very thing that physics is seeking to measure and make sense of. If physicists are unwilling to answer a question of this importance, they are simply not in a position to lay down the law about the correctness or otherwise of any of their theories - they automatically hand that job over to the philosophers (or mathematicians and logicians - there isn't a tool used in philosophy that doesn't come from mathematics), and if they've done that, they should bow to our superior judgement and accept that SR is dead in the water. But then they don't really accept that at all, and that's precisely why they have a duty to pick one of the two provided statements.

You don't want to give an answer because you lose the argument either way: you'll either look ridiculous by endorsing a contradiction, or else you have to accept that set 2 models aren't valid. I could give you an equivalent choice based on the happening and unhappening issue:-

In the underlying reality...

(1) event B has happened and event B has not happened yet.

(2) event B cannot have happened yet if event B hasn't happened.

You should be able to pick one of those options too if you're a serious participant in the conversation. We have the same situation with two frames making rival claims about an underlying reality, and all we're doing is asking whether both claims can be true. If the underlying reality is nothing more than the measurements produced by using different frames, then both claims must be asserted to be true (and that means we have a model of a proposed reality that produces contradictions, and which is therefore broken). As soon as you leave room for the measurements to be anything other than the only reality, you necessarily bring a possible underlying reality different from the measurements, and then your measurements only tell you how things appear when analysed with respect to frames, thereby enabling one of them to be a better representation of the underlying reality than the other. In this particular case, the option of the measurements being the only reality is closed off by the contradictions ruling that out, but the same contradictions appear in the underlying reality that then has to come into play unless some of the claims from some frames' analysis are false, in which case set 2 models are again destroyed by the need of an absolute frame to eliminate all the contradictions. It's really simple stuff, but not all minds are capable of processing such ideas (largely because so many have been shackled by brainwashing and aren't allowed to function properly in the way they once did).

They can measure each others ticks on approach and after passing each other

They are not approaching or passing each other. Read again what I said.

No - I don't like your version because you're trying to eliminate the "while". My version guarantees the "while" and forces you to accept that the clocks are doing something at the same time that we can compare in terms of relative ticking rate.

However, there is only one underlying reality, and in that underlying reality it cannot be the case that both clocks are ticking faster than the other clock. If you disagree with that, you should say so. And if you agree with it, again you should say so. This will reveal whether you are doing magic or physics.

You should re-frame the above statement in terms of something that can be measured. This will reveal whether you are discussing the empirical subject of physics.

Again you're trying to make out that this isn't physics, and yet physicists want to have a say on the matter, so what are you scared of? You don't even want a pop at the question? Physicists use philosophy to assert that SR is superior to LET, but when that assertion is questioned, they won't venture into philosophy to discuss the reality that physics is exploring? Utterly inconsistent!

OK, re "event meshing failures" here's the relevant post:

viewtopic.php?p=318868#p318868

You seem to be under the impression that things move through spacetime. They don't. Things have worldlines in spacetime, as the diagram (not the simulation) depicts. All objects are present at all points on their worldlines, so there is no concept of ships arriving while their planets are still in the past. Nothing has a current moment.

Note what he's telling you here, David. Talking about an object "progressing through spacetime" and arriving at a point in its worldline (at an event in the 4 dimensional graph of its life history) is a category error. Note: this doesn't mean that we have to throw away the idea that time flows, if we don't want to. So don't start going on about that.

Like I told you before, he is trying to apply set zero model rules to set 1 models, and they don't apply there. In set 1's 4D block model, we're trying to grow a 4D block in order of causation, and the physics is different from the eternal static block which was created by magic instead. This is a case of you and him trying to mix models. Set 1 models have their own rules and in the case of the 4D block model in that set this requires the block to be grown in such a way that items start at one end of the block and get threaded through the block over Newtonian time, the leading point of each object progressing through the time dimension at one tick per second in the way that Einstein wanted. He didn't want a lot of the rules that are needed for this to happen, but then he never spelt out how to generate a block - he just left that to magic. All I've done is fill in the missing work that he should have done. None of this changes the set zero model - it still "works" by its own rules, but merely has no rational way of coming into being with real causation playing out within that process. You're stuck with the magic block model, and you don't even seem to understand the need to try to generate it rationally because you don't realise that the "causation" written through the block can only be real if there's a running process involved in shaping the future of the block from the past.

A 4 dimensional graph of the set of events that constitute the entire life of an object is just that - a 4 dimensional graph, one of whose axes is time.

Lovely - that's your set zero model, as I've told you, and its rules do not govern the other sets of models.

[David Cooper]

Correction: Halc was not mixing models.

I was referring to the spacetime model that is described in Einstein's theory, not to this set-zero model described in David's paper. If the set zero model is found inconsistent, that is fine with me.

The set zero model is Einstein's Minkowski model - set 1 is the one with event-meshing failures and two kinds of time. There's no inconsistency in the 4D set zero model - it's only problem is that it was never generated in order of causality, so all the "causation" in it is fake. That is what invalidates it. The other set's block models are attempts to generate a block without depending on magic; attempts to make causality real in such blocks. The set 1 4D block model is viable - it's just so contrived and far fetched that it's not a realistic contender, but it shouldn't be ruled out 100%.

[David Cooper]

There is no contradiction in saying that I am moving with respect to frame A and stationary with respect to frame B.

I've told you plenty of times that I have no problem with that - it is not a contradiction.

Just to be absolutely 100% crystal clear on this, here is where you said the thing that you now deny:

if something is not moving in one frame (no change in spatial distance between itself and any other object at rest in that frame) and is moving in another (with a change in spatial distance between other objects which are at rest in that frame), then we have contradictory claims from different frames about whether the object is moving or not, and we can't tell which one is wrong.

I've explained this about a dozen times (and I've also told you that my argument doesn't depend on this, so it's a time-wasting diversion - it only relates to a comment in my introduction to relativity which is fully valid, because you never can tell if you're moving or not). Your statement at the top contains a hidden contradiction at a deeper level if it's analysed in relation to some models, but there isn't a contradiction on the surface. If someone tells me that he has lived his whole life in Japan and then tells me that he's never been outside of Peru in his life, he has contradicted himself. However, there is no contradiction at the surface level in the statement: he told me that he lives in Japan and then told me that he's never been outside of Peru in his life. That statement is true. You can still see the deeper contradiction embedded within the statement though. It's the same with this moving business. There is no surface-level contradiction in your statement at the top, but there is a deep contradiction hidden in there none the less if it's analysed in relation to some models . In my statement, I refer to that deep contradiction which you're ignoring.

It is true that he told me he lives in Japan and that he's never been outside of Peru.
It is not true that he lives in Japan AND that he has never been outside of Peru.

It is true that frame A analysis says you are moving and that frame B analysis says you are stationary.
It is not true that you are both moving and stationary.

You try to attack that on the basis that you think the word "moving" is being misused, but it isn't - it relates to the underlying reality, and there's always an underlying reality unless the surface measurements are the only reality. Importantly though, you don't get there via this issue of whether things are moving or not - you get there by looking at other issues first, such as the relative tick rate issue, or the happening and unhappening issue, or the issue of the speed of light relative to objects, and only after you've destroyed set 2 models through any of those approaches to you come back to the moving vs. stationary issue. That is why it is not part of my argument - I don't use it. It merely comes out of the conclusion at the end.

As me and Halc discussed a while ago, your self contradiction, and your refusal to acknowledge it as such, appears to arise from your ambiguous use of the word "moving". Please properly look at what you've said here and understand why it's important to clearly and unambiguously say what you mean. Don't just fly off the handle with a long rant about dogmas or whatever. This is not "word games". It's simply properly defining words. In order to parse a statement or a question we first need to understand, as clearly as possible, what the words in that statement or question mean. The attempt to do that is not a word game.

I did not contradict myself - you're just reading it on too shallow a level, failing to see the whole landscape. I haven't called this one a word game - it's just a diversion aimed at derailing the discussion. You've been told repeatedly that the issues to look at are the ones involving ticking rates, unhappenings and the speed of light relative to objects, but you keep trying to attack a phrase in an introduction instead. If you ever get to the point where you can get up the courage to make a decision as to whether something can be a happened and not-yet-happened event at the same time, or whether two clocks can each tick faster than the other at the same time, then you'll be ready to come back to this moving issue armed with the better understanding that you currently lack. Options need to be reduced first, and then you can come back to this issue with that reduced set of options. It is not an issue that is used to prove anything - it is only resolved at the end of the process, and you're trying to run before you can walk.

[David Cooper]

On the underlying reality:

Today I (1) stood on the platform waiting for the train (2) traveled to the town (3) traveled back home. I think each of these happened in the underlying reality, with the usual meters and seconds available if I wanted to measure things. But if I had wanted to measure things in the other frames from my current frame with my meters and seconds, and do this with high accuracy, I would have noticed that the seconds in the other frames would be longer than my seconds, and the meters shorter than my meters, and this would be the case independent of which frame I would be in. And because this looks a bit paradoxical, I would also have noticed that the relation of simultaneity between frames is not symmetric, and this explains the seeming paradox of all clocks in all other frames running slower. So in SR, compared to Newtonian relativity, we are obliged to map all other frames according to a different kind of coordinate system because of the constancy of light speed in all frames. But all frames belong to the underlying reality with their clocks ticking our usual seconds and their meters measuring lengths in the usual way for those who are “participants” of those frames. So there is no absolute frame representing the underlying reality, and we need no such “ether”, because all frames are equally real.

Just to clear things up for myself. Something wrong with the thoughts above?

Your conclusion isn't rationally generated from what comes before it. Like Steve though, you need to focus your attention on one of the key issues that actually shows up the problem starkly, and that means an issue such as whether two clocks can each tick faster than the other at the same time. If you think they can, then there's nothing more that needs to be said. Alternatively, you can speculate about scheduled events at a distance and compare the claims that come out of the analysis of different frames where the analysis from some frames says the event has happened and the analysis from other frames say it hasn't happened yet. Again, if you think an event can have happened and that it can at the same time not have happened yet, then there's no further need for discussion. The acceptance of either of those is the acceptance of magic in place of physics.

[Halc]

The set zero model is Einstein's Minkowski model - set 1 is the one with event-meshing failures and two kinds of time. There's no inconsistency in the 4D set zero model - it's only problem is that it was never generated in order of causality, so all the "causation" in it is fake.

That's fine. Einstein's relativity doesn't assert that the universe needs to 'be generated', so it isn't inconsistent on that front.

This (my bold) is the first I've heard you describe 'Einstein's Minkowski model' as consistent, except for this generation point, which is a philosophical topic on its own that you'll also have to take up with Lorentz who proposed it, even if he didn't complete the work.

Yes, I'm well aware that you consider relationships between events to be fake causation.

[Halc]

On the underlying reality:

Today I (1) stood on the platform waiting for the train (2) traveled to the town (3) traveled back home. I think each of these happened in the underlying reality, with the usual meters and seconds available if I wanted to measure things. But if I had wanted to measure things in the other frames from my current frame with my meters and seconds, and do this with high accuracy, I would have noticed that the seconds in the other frames would be longer than my seconds, and the meters shorter than my meters, and this would be the case independent of which frame I would be in. And because this looks a bit paradoxical, I would also have noticed that the relation of simultaneity between frames is not symmetric, and this explains the seeming paradox of all clocks in all other frames running slower. So in SR, compared to Newtonian relativity, we are obliged to map all other frames according to a different kind of coordinate system because of the constancy of light speed in all frames. But all frames belong to the underlying reality with their clocks ticking our usual seconds and their meters measuring lengths in the usual way for those who are “participants” of those frames. So there is no absolute frame representing the underlying reality, and we need no such “ether”, because all frames are equally real.

Just to clear things up for myself. Something wrong with the thoughts above?

I would have agreed on all of it but the last bits I bolded, since it asserts certain interpretations. SR has no need of an absolute frame, but it doesn't forbid one either. The underlying reality may or may not have a meaningful absolute 'at rest'. SR says that physics works in all frames. It makes no assertion about them corresponding to reality or not, but the typical spacetime interpretation does indeed say that they all correspond to reality. David asserts one atypical interpretation and finds any other interpretation contradictory because it is not the one asserted.

[Halc]

I can follow both of you, but it still requires an interpreter since different languages are being spoken, but I see glimmers of light on that front

Reference frame A is not proposing itself to be either B, C, D or E.

Indeed - it is only proposing itself to be frame E (the absolute frame) in addition to itself.

Aww... The glimmer went out.
I see no hope of a common language.

[Tamminen]

...whether two clocks can each tick faster than the other at the same time

If a clock in frame A ticks for 4 seconds and simultaneously, measured in A, a clock in frame B ticks for 2 seconds, the clock in frame B ticks slower than the clock in frame A, as measured in A. But measured in frame B the same 2 seconds are simultaneous with only 1 second in frame A, and this means that the clock in frame A ticks slower as measured in B. But it must be noted that the 4 seconds of the clock in A as measured in A are not simultaneous with the 1 second of the clock in A as measured in B, either from the point of view of A or the point of view of B. So simultaneity is frame-dependent. If x in frame A and y in frame B are simultaneous in frame A, they need not be simultaneous in frame B. So two clocks can both never tick slower than the other at the same time, meaning simultaneously. The relation of simultaneity is not symmetric between events in two frames. Counterintuitive perhaps, but not self-contradictory. And all this because the speed of light is the same in all frames.

[Steve3007]

Aww... The glimmer went out. I see no hope of a common language.

Yes, I think you're right.

One problem, in my opinion, is that David falls into the trap that lots of people fall into when talking about time. It's the trap of misusing temporal language and, as a result, making statements and asking questions that contradict themselves, use words to mean different things in the same sentence, are vague, make no sense or don't contain the relevant information. In everyday speech, about everyday human-scale events, we can normally get away with this kind of thing. It's no big deal. We muddle through. But when discussing these kinds of topics in physics we can't be so casual. We have to say precisely what we mean and we have to be clear as to how our words link (either directly or indirectly) to something that can be measured/observed. That's why, when trying to be as precise as possible, mathematics is used instead of English. But the mathematics is dry, hard to follow and (not being used everyday by most of us) easily forgotten. I know I've forgotten most of it! I certainly couldn't conduct a conversation about physics entirely using it.

I tried to start showing David some of these issues with temporal language by pointing this out:

"while" = at the same time.
Time is the thing that is measured by clocks.

viewtopic.php?p=320312#p320312

The trouble is, when it comes down to explicitly showing David where his words are failing like this, he seems to try to pull an analogous trick to the one that he does with "underlying reality". He seems almost to suggest that, when they're explicitly pointed out, the contradictions in his words don't matter (and that anyone who disagrees is merely playing word games, seeking to distract, concentrating on the wrong thing, scared to admit what a fool they are, falling for a dogma etc) and that what matters is the underlying David, and that what we can see in his words will never truly show us what the underlying David means, no matter how much we analyse those words. But, rest assured, the underlying David is right about everything!

A small illustration:

In the underlying reality...

(1) clock A can tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A.

(2) clock A cannot tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A.

Pick one of those options if you're a serious participant in the conversation.

A similar approach to the one used in his online quiz. "Make the binary (yes or no, 1 or 2) choice that I set in front of you or be thrown out." As I said a long time ago, it's a version of the classic "have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no?" fallacy.


So, as I said "while" is a synonym for "at the same time" or "simultaneously". So whenever the temporal word "while" is used, we can replace it with one of those terms (with appropriate adjustments for grammar) without changing the meaning.

For example, if I say "I am drinking while driving" that is the same as saying "I am drinking at the same time that I am driving" or "I am simultaneously drinking and driving". It means the same thing.

And since time is a thing that is measured by a clock, in order to tie that sentence to something that can be measured (and therefore render it meaningful to the empirical subject of physics) we need to either explicitly or implicitly say how we might propose to empirically test the proposition that those two events are simultaneous in time. "Time as measured by whose clock?" we have to ask. Obviously in the everyday surface-of-the-Earth world, with its everyday statements about such events as drink-driving, it's all unthinkingly implicit. So time for most purposes can be thought of as a single "underlying" thing (so-called "Newtonian time") that all clocks aspire to measure. It is, as it were, a Platonic ideal of which their readings are deemed to be mere imperfect reflections. This appears to be very much David's view of the world. He'd love Plato's parable of the Csve, I suspect.

So now, keeping all of this in mind we can try to make sense of the options David claims to have given us above. It seems reasonably clear now that those two options contain implicit premises. One implicit premise is that there is a third clock (which I'll call clock E) implied by his two uses of the word "while". Another is that there is a third observer (whom I'll call observer E) who is holding that clock and receiving signals from clocks A and B so he can give us his judgement as to which is measured to be ticking faster. But, of course, that judgement will depend on the relative movements of A, B and E. So, for example, the first option (with the premise made explicit) is:

"(1) If observer E is stationary WRT to reference frame E and uses clock E to measure the tick-rates of clocks A and B, can he/she measure a tick-rate which disagrees with the measurements made by A and B?"

Yes, of course they can all measure different relative tick rates depending on their relative motions.

When we make the language explicit, and tie it to that which can be measured, we see that the problem with David's language here is essentially the same as the problem when he incorrectly says, elsewhere, that reference frame A somehow implicitly asserts itself to also be frame E, but no other frame. Obviously that's not true. If I say "I am stationary in the reference frame represented by the marks on the inside of the chassis of my car" I am not, either explicitly or implicitly saying "...and I am also stationary WRT another reference frame in which the ether is stationary." Of course I'm not.

Of course, if I'm wrong to think that those premises are implied, then the true premises need to be made explicit in order to render the propositions meaningful enough to be susceptible to analysis. The precise sense in which the word "while" is being used needs to be explained.

But I suspect what I'll get instead is either "you have failed to pick an option therefore you are not a serious participant in this conversation" (i.e. I'll be thrown out for not giving a binary answer to a question with hidden premises) or I'll get another long diatribe which fails to address what I've actually said here, just goes on about his various models, and simply asserts, once again, self-evident falsehoods. So, returning full-circle to the start of this post: I don't think David and I will ever find a common language. But it's fun trying.

[Steve3007]

Typo: When I said "csve" I meant "cave".

[Steve3007]

If a clock in frame A ticks for 4 seconds and simultaneously, measured in A, a clock in frame B ticks for 2 seconds, the clock in frame B ticks slower than the clock in frame A, as measured in A.

Yes, that's right, as measured WRT A. Those are all measurements that are made by an observer who is stationary WRT frame A. The parts which I've bolded are, I think, the critical parts.

But measured in frame B the same 2 seconds are simultaneous with only 1 second in frame A, and this means that the clock in frame A ticks slower as measured in B.

Yes. The event of an observer who is stationary WRT frame A receiving a tick from clock A is a different event from the event of an observer who is stationary WRT frame B receiving a tick from clock A.

But it must be noted that the 4 seconds of the clock in A as measured in A are not simultaneous with the 1 second of the clock in A as measured in B, either from the point of view of A or the point of view of B. So simultaneity is frame-dependent.

Yes. This highlights that we have to think very carefully about precisely what we're doing when we decide, based on our observations, that we are going to regard two events as simultaneous. In everyday life we don't have to think so carefully about it. But, as we know, different observers who are moving very fast relative to each other can disagree. Some can think event 1 happened before event 2. Some can think the opposite.

An important point here is that this doesn't destroy the concept of causality. If two events are spatially close together enough that one can affect the other, or one could be the cause of the other, then all observers will agree as to which one happened first, regardless of how they're moving. This is why 'c' is actually, more generally, the maximum speed of "influence" or information transfer. Causality means influence. If it's physically impossible for one event to influence another then, in the context of empirical physics, it's meaningless to talk of a causal relationship between them. In other words: proposing a causal relationship between them doesn't correspond to any possible measurement/observation. It is not an empirically falsifiable proposition.

If x in frame A and y in frame B are simultaneous in frame A, they need not be simultaneous in frame B. So two clocks can both never tick slower than the other at the same time, meaning simultaneously. The relation of simultaneity is not symmetric between events in two frames. Counterintuitive perhaps, but not self-contradictory. And all this because the speed of light is the same in all frames.

Yes, there is an important distinction between ideas that are counter-intuitive (i.e. ideas that go against the intuition that we have developed as a result of our many human-scale experiences) and ideas that are logically impossible.

[Steve3007]

There are, as always, numerous things in David's previous posts that I could comment on. But Burning Ghost's comment that the argument is going in circles is starting to get more apt. So, for now, I'll just tackle the obvious flaw in David's new Japan/Peru analogy:

viewtopic.php?p=320380#p320380

Here is a recap:

There is no contradiction in saying that I am moving with respect to frame A and stationary with respect to frame B.

I've told you plenty of times that I have no problem with that - it is not a contradiction.

Just to be absolutely 100% crystal clear on this, here is where you said the thing that you now deny:

if something is not moving in one frame (no change in spatial distance between itself and any other object at rest in that frame) and is moving in another (with a change in spatial distance between other objects which are at rest in that frame), then we have contradictory claims from different frames about whether the object is moving or not, and we can't tell which one is wrong.

Here is the Japan/Peru analogy:

I've explained this about a dozen times (and I've also told you that my argument doesn't depend on this, so it's a time-wasting diversion - it only relates to a comment in my introduction to relativity which is fully valid, because you never can tell if you're moving or not). Your statement at the top contains a hidden contradiction at a deeper level if it's analysed in relation to some models, but there isn't a contradiction on the surface. If someone tells me that he has lived his whole life in Japan and then tells me that he's never been outside of Peru in his life, he has contradicted himself. However, there is no contradiction at the surface level in the statement: he told me that he lives in Japan and then told me that he's never been outside of Peru in his life. That statement is true. You can still see the deeper contradiction embedded within the statement though. It's the same with this moving business. There is no surface-level contradiction in your statement at the top, but there is a deep contradiction hidden in there none the less if it's analysed in relation to some models . In my statement, I refer to that deep contradiction which you're ignoring.

It is true that he told me he lives in Japan and that he's never been outside of Peru.
It is not true that he lives in Japan AND that he has never been outside of Peru.

It is true that frame A analysis says you are moving and that frame B analysis says you are stationary.
It is not true that you are both moving and stationary.

Here is the flaw (see bolded part above):

If you are simply accurately reporting what somebody else has said then, as long as that report is accurate, there in no contradiction in that report, even if the person who's words are being reported has contradicted himself. His words don't even have to make sense. They don't even have to be recongnisable words, so long as they are faithfully reported. OK. So far so good.

But the person who claims to have lived all his life in both Peru and Japan is not just contradicting himself. He is misrepresenting his own measurements. The observers who report their movements relative to two different reference frames are accurately reporting their measurements.

The Japan/Peru analogy would be a more accurate analogy of lying observers who make false reports as to what they are measuring, which are also self-contradictory. A better analogy would be a person who claims to have spent their whole life upside down with respect to a reference frame that is right-way-up in New Zealand but right-way-up WRT an England-orientated frame. If they are an unadventurous Englishman then their statement is true and not self-contradictory. If they are more adventurous then it's probably a lie, but it's still not self-contradictory.

David, your position would presumably be: No! There is a hidden claim in their words. They're also claiming to have spent their whole life the right-way-up relative to the ether - the absolute frame. I demand that you accept this as true. If you don't, then you lack reasoning power.

Yes?

[Steve3007]

Error: In the interests of strict accuracy, I should have said New Zealand and Spain, apparently.

[Halc]

There is a hidden claim in their words. They're also claiming to have spent their whole life the right-way-up relative to the ether - the absolute frame. I demand that you accept this as true. If you don't, then you lack reasoning power.

Yes?

Good point. If there is an underlying reality, there must be an objective up as well. The ether is motionless, but everywhere, so it doesn't suggest an up. But events have an absolute location in this absolute reality of David's. He's posted that, and defended it from my objections. So the big bang happened at some location, and down is plausibly that way. Point in the direction of that event, and the other way is up. We'll let him figure out which direction (from the remaining two dimensions) is objective forward, and which remaining direction is thus trivially objective left.

Doesn't work in my model. Yea, I can point in the direction of the BB, but the other way isn't 'up'.