Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

[Steve3007]

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.

[Steve3007]

Clock A is measured by clock A to be ticking more quickly than clock B while clock B is measured by clock B to be ticking more quickly than clock A. No contradiction in that.

I agree with the above statement. (Although I would say "clock A is measured by observer A".)

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.

[Steve3007]

Error: When I said this: "A is not proposing to be A, B, C, D or E." I meant this: "A is not proposing to be B, C, D or E.". Clearly, by definition, A is A. (I assume you at least do agree with that.)

[Steve3007]

Event-meshing failures automatically arise out of any attempt to run time under the rule that no clocks run slow. Anything Halc may have said about a set zero model has no bearing on what happens in set 1 models - with set 1 we try to generate the block in a manner that gives causation a role, and event-meshing failures are absolutely unavoidable there. You are simply arguing against something that goes beyond your limited knowledge and understanding.

As I recall, from a long time ago, Halc pointed out to you that your discussion of "event meshing failures" stems from your misunderstanding of what a 4 dimensional graph of the world-line of an object represents. Hopefully, if Halc sees this, he will tell me if I am remembering his words correctly.

[Steve3007]

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.

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.

[Halc]

Event-meshing failures automatically arise out of any attempt to run time under the rule that no clocks run slow. Anything Halc may have said about a set zero model has no bearing on what happens in set 1 models - with set 1 we try to generate the block in a manner that gives causation a role, and event-meshing failures are absolutely unavoidable there. You are simply arguing against something that goes beyond your limited knowledge and understanding.

As I recall, from a long time ago, Halc pointed out to you that your discussion of "event meshing failures" stems from your misunderstanding of what a 4 dimensional graph of the world-line of an object represents. Hopefully, if Halc sees this, he will tell me if I am remembering his words correctly.

Yes, I'm watching all this. 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.

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.

[Steve3007]

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.

I'm glad you can see glimmers of light because I don't think I can! When David incorrectly says that frame A asserts itself to also be another frame (which happens to be the frame that he regards as the absolute one, and which I refer to as frame E, to try to show him his error) I really don't think he can yet see the error he is making. Of course, if it is I who is making the error I'd be keen to know.

[Steve3007]

As I said to David a while ago, the root of our disagreement stems from our disagreement as to what physics actually is, and what the laws of physics are. He hasn't yet accepted that. When I said that, he said that we were merely using different words to describe the same thing. I don't think we are. I think the laws of physics are, essentially, patterns in our observations. He doesn't.

[Steve3007]

Re this:
viewtopic.php?p=320316#p320316

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.

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.

[Burning ghost]

Steve -

Is that is the case why are you spamming the same things over and over. Why not just leave it?

[Steve3007]

Thank you for your input BG. I disagree with your characterization of the conversation.

[Fooloso4]

Steve3007:

Thank you for your input BG. I disagree with your characterization of the conversation.

As do I.

[Steve3007]

Thank you Fooloso4. I presume BG referred to "spamming" at least partly because I wrote several short posts in succession in response to, and immediately after, this post of David's:

viewtopic.php?p=320314#p320314

Each of those short posts deals with a different point from David's relatively long post. Of course, I could have posted a relatively long post myself and tried to deal with several things at once within it, including numerous quotes. That is what I, and many others, often tend to do in this forum. But it struck me that one of the problems with that approach is that points easily get mixed up and confused. A series of smaller posts can be referred back to individually, by both their writer and anyone wanting to critique them. That's why I did it.

[Fooloso4]

Steve:

I presume BG referred to "spamming" at least partly because I wrote several short posts in succession in response to, and immediately after ...

I took it as stated:

… the same things over and over

I don’t agree. There is always some repetition but I think you are doing a good job of clarifying the issues and points of disagreement.

But it struck me that one of the problems with that approach is that points easily get mixed up and confused.

I have thought of the best way to deal with this problem as well and have not come up with an effective strategy, but that is a discussion for another time in another topic.

[Burning ghost]

Don’t mind me. Just trying to figure out what this is all about. It does look to me like things are being said and denied over and over, but if I’m wrong I’m wrong.

I’m just overly keen to get involved and a little frustrated that I cannot really see what is being talked about. You guys seem to be getting something done though so I’ll just butt out and PM if I get a grasp of this better before I bother posting anything.