David Cooper wrote: ↑
September 20th, 2018, 12:38 am
It's easier to understand these different sets of models if you can see them in action, so I wrote a simulation that can run in three different modes to illustrate the three sets of models that have a running time in them (mode zero is static, so it is not represented there directly). You can find that simulation about 3/8 of the way down my page about relativity: http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html
- scroll past the MMX diagrams near the top, on beyond the diagrams with little space-shuttles in them, and on down to the pair of Spacetime diagrams. The simulation is below them, but the Spacetime diagrams represent the same thought experiment, and the text underneath them explains what's going on in the simulation.
Einstein's original version of SR is arguably a set 2 3D non-block model, but it could also be a set 1 3D non-block model. It's often described in such a way as to be a hybrid of the two, but the two models are incompatible with each other as they run on different rules, so such a hybrid model is banned. The two models named here are also impossible models: the set 1 non-block models suffer from event-meshing failures which invalidate them; while the set 2 non-block models generate contradictions which invalidate them. Set 2 block models cannot be constructed rationally, so they are invalidated too, and that means that all the set 2 models are dead. No viable theory can use them.
Is there any model left that could be Einstein's original SR? Well, if it's set 3's 3D non-block model, then it's the same theory as LET and must take on the same metaphysics as LET, but Einstein was very clear that SR is not LET. Perhaps it could be the set 3 3D block model where the absolute frame becomes rather redundant, but that model needs to be constructed by LET, so it's superfluous. The only model that remains as a candidate is the set zero 3D block, and that's a block that was never generated in order of causation, so all the causality written through it is fake. It's an invalidated model. We can see from this that there is no viable model for Einstein's original version of SR.
Now, many people dispute points that I've made above and claim that they're wrong, but the points are correct and the people who claim otherwise are the ones who are wrong. I can demonstrate that all the points I've made are correct (or at least, the ones that the argument depends on - I can't guarantee that every statement I make in the course of a conversation in a long thread is correct, but the key ones that the argument rests on are right and have stood up to all attempts to break them over many years).
David - It's nice to find someone that understands physics.
The Scientific Community worships Einstein and his theories as if they were absolutely true.
The idea the time slows, or that space bends, is nonsense. The Big Bang theory is nonsense.
The Universe has ALWAYS been here, it had no beginning. Space does not expand, and time is a constant.
I think the problem is that people were taught false information, and they've accepted it as true. It's kind of like the Emperor's New Clothes, most go along with the crowd, afraid to say anything for fear they will might look dumb. Either that or they never learned how to think logically, because the Universe is simple, if you can apply logic.