(Sorry about the long delay between posts - I heard some amazing things about Salisbury Cathedral and just had to take a couple of days out to go and see its spire and clock.)
Halc wrote: ↑
September 12th, 2018, 9:03 am
LET also acknowledges this, but somehow LET is not wrong when it says the same thing.
That bit has nothing to do with SR being wrong. It's solely aimed at people who attempt to defend mode 2 models by misapplying frame rules, and it's important to get those models out of the way to focus on viable models instead and to stop the mode 2 models being smuggled back into play repeatedly.
The way SR is disproved is the way that all the models that are recognised as SR have faults which invalidate them, and Sagnac/MGP's role is in providing proof that my thought experiment is valid, which in turn proves that frames work by the rules I claim of them, which proves that SR generates contradictions which invalidate some models of it (while the remaining SR models are invalidated in other ways).
This rambling sentence asserts faults in SR but doesn't point them out, especially since SR predicts Sagnac effect. Not sure what rule you're talking about.
There's nothing rambling about it. You've been led through all the points that it refers to, so you should be able to follow it. There are four versions of each of the three modes shown in my simulation, each mode having 3D and 4D versions, and non-block and block versions of each of those. Mode 2 models generate contradictions which many people deny, and in defending those models they misuse frame rules to try to hide the contradictions. Other models are disproved in other ways. You agree that the mode 2 models aren't valid, so that simplifies things for this discussion by removing them from the table. The mode 0 models (3D and 4D block models which exist eternally without ever being created in order of causation) are invalidated by the impossibility of real causality existing in them - you haven't rejected them yet, but you have put yourself in an extreme position where you use dodgy rules for things that don't exist to assert that causation doesn't have to run for causality to be real. Mode 1 models all suffer from event-meshing failures, so only the block versions remain potentially viable, and even then they're far-fetched and depend on adding Newtonian time into them (which is normally considered to be banned in SR) to enable the event-meshing failures to be erased over Newtonian time. Mode 3 models need an absolute frame, and the block versions there are superfluous as they depend on the non-block versions for the block generation phase. The only models left standing are LET and a 4D "SR" model with an absolute frame (which is normally considered to be banned in SR), and if you go for any 4D version, that's revealed to be ridiculously far-fetched too once you start thinking about what happens when light reduces all of its paths to zero length. The only theory that doesn't look ludicrous by the end of it is LET, while the alternatives are either impossible or break at least one of the normal rules of SR.
There's no straw man there - there's no point in pretending there's a speed of light involved if it reduces all paths to zero length. There is only a speed of light in 3D models.
You have exhibited pretty much zero understanding of other models. This statement is a classic example. It even denies the straw man accusation as it makes one: that the model "reduces all paths to zero length". You have a picture of the model in your web page, and I notice path lengths are not zero.
I very clearly understand the range and function of the different models a lot better than you do, as you keep demonstrating. I had assumed that you understood that Spacetime diagrams don't show the proposed underlying 4D geometry accurately, but stretch it out in all cases where the lines aren't vertical. The closer they are to 45 degrees, the more shortened their paths become because those objects are moving close to the speed of light, and when you change frame to make a line vertical, you reveal its real 4D length. As you do that with more and more extreme frames, these lines shorten towards zero, demonstrating that if you could do it with light paths, they would necessarily be of zero length. Think about an object travelling just under the speed of light such that it covers ten billion lightyears (as measured by us) while its clock only ticks out one second. What is the contracted length of that path? Now do it again with the clock only ticking up a millionth of a second over that same distance (as measured by us) - what is the contracted length for that? Repeat with the clock only ticking up a quintillionth of a second during the trip. You can go on infinitely with shorter and shorter times and more and more compressed distance, both time and length clearly tending to zero. The path that light travels cannot be longer in length than the shortest of the paths these fast-moving objects take, and therefore it must be zero length and zero time (by the "time" of the "time" dimension). The 3D alternative, LET, is clearly much more sensible as light simply moves through space at c without the distance being shortened at all.
Indeed - that is not a contradiction at all. It only becomes a contradiction in cases where a clock is claimed to be ticking faster than another clock that is claimed to be ticking faster than the first and when both are asserted to be true
Again you leave off the frame references when you want to make a point, knowing that it makes your statement sound contradictory instead of just deliberately misleading. SR does not claim what you say. It claims that it will be measured thus in respective frames where each clock is slower than the other. LET asserts the same thing.
The frame references are so damned obvious that no one competent needs help in working out that two different frames are being used there. There are two frames which both exist at the same place at the same moment as each other, and the two frames are making contradictory assertions. No theory can just wish those contradictions away. LET accepts that they are contradictions and says that at least one of them is misrepresenting reality. SR fails to do that and tolerates the contradiction. If SR was to be rational, it would not tolerate the contradiction and it would say that at least one of them is misrepresenting the underlying reality, but it doesn't do that because SR denies the existence of an underlying reality.
What law of logic would be violated by A faster than B relative to one frame, and B faster than A relative to another? Never mind the measurement business. By what valid law of logic is this a contradiction?
There is no contradiction there in the way those statements have been made. The contradiction only comes in when both frames are asserted to be true representations of the underlying reality.
A[re?] you perhaps invoking law of non-contradiction in an invalid way? Or is it something else? You seem to accept an object having different speeds relative to different frames, but a second example has you crying contradiction.
It is correct to say that one frame asserts that A is faster than B (obviously in that frame) and that another frame asserts that B is faster than A (obviously in that other frame), which is an alternative way of phrasing what you said. You don't get a contradiction there (in the main statement) because what's being reported is true. You only get a contradictions when you compare the two assertions and look to see if they are compatible. This is equivalent to a case where someone says 1=2 and where someone reports that: "John says that 1 equals 2". That sentence is true as its truth is not dependent on 1 being equal to 2. In the same way, John might say that x=1 while Gertrude says x=2, and there's no contradiction in a claim that "John says x=1 and Gertrude says x=2". There is a contradiction hidden there at a different level though, but that contradiction is not being made by the person who produced the sentence. The contradiction is in the idea that x can be 1 and 2 at the same time, and that becomes a serious contradiction if someone is stupid enough to claim that John and Gertrude are both right.
This seems like classic confirmation bias. You accept facts that seem to support your view, but find nearly similar facts to be nonsense if you feel it threatens your view. If we really get close to pointing out your errors, then the accusations of 'magic' and 'dogma' come forth. I must be doing something right because I've driven you to that point on a number of occasions.
The errors are on your side - you've been failing to handle logic correctly, taking a case where there's no contradiction and a case where there is a contradiction to be the same thing so that you can deny the contradiction in the latter case. Let's go through it again to make sure you've got it now:-
Frame A says that clock A is ticking more quickly than clock B.
Frame B says that clock B is ticking more quickly than clock A.
Frame A says that clock A is ticking more quickly than clock B AND Frame B says that clock B is ticking more quickly than clock A.
True. (They do say that.)
Now compare the actual claims made by the frames:-
Clock A is ticking more quickly than clock B AND clock B is ticking more quickly than clock A.
Contradiction, therefore that sentence is false, and that means that at least one of the two statements within it is false.
What defence do you have against this argument? That frames don't make assertions, perhaps. Fine - just translate from my wording to something you're happy with where it becomes clear that those claims must be generated by anyone who analyses the events through the lens of those frames and makes correct statements about the relative ticking rates of the two clocks. The two claims are necessarily generated in such a situation (which is why I say that the frames make those assertions), and when they're compared, they contradict each other.
Quite why you're objecting to that though when you've already accepted that mode 2 models have been invalidated by these contradictions, I do no know. All the above is based on correct reasoning of the kind any logician would understand. Your objection here was based on a flawed understanding of logic which I suggest you should fix now.
or where an event is claimed to have happened by one frame and claimed not to have happened yet by another and when both claims are asserted to be true.
No model claims that.
Those claims are made by those frames and they are asserted at a single point in space at a single moment in time. Mode 2 models make exactly those claims. So do mode 3 models, but in mode 3 models the contradiction is recognised rather than denied. (Frames in mode 1 models don't make such obvious contradictory claims because changing frame doesn't change the events asserted to have happened.)
This presumes an interpretation where there is a current state of the universe and all events are in exactly one of a category of (happened, happening, and will-happen), and only the happening events are real.
Any model with running time will necessarily have such current states, even if they're lost once you get into the alternative physics of the block universe that's being built this way.
I know of no scientific theory that asserts the second premise: that of a preferred moment. It certainly is absent from Lorentz's theories. The theories don't deny it either, but they deny its detectability.
If you have running time (which is necessary in all models that don't magically exist in completed block form from the start), at any point where something happens, there is a time before it happened in which it had not happened, and a time after it in which it is a past happening. Such an event is not happened and unhappened repeatedly, but happens once and remains as happened ever afterwards. Changing frame at one location does not change events at other locations, and all non-magical theories are bound by this regardless of whether a theory states that it's bound by it or not.
So when I say no valid model claims that, I mean interpretations with the premise of there being a preferred moment do not claim that other events have both happened and not happened. This is why your mode 2 doesn't depict any known valid interpretation since it is contradictory exactly for the reasons you state. Interpretations without the premise of there being a preferred moment do not have a concept of those three states, and any reference to the states is meaningless mixing of models, not contradictory.
Mode 2 represents some models that are often presented as SR, though people typically use a mixture of a variety of incompatible models, borrowing from mode 2 whenever it suits them. I insist when people set out their model that they tell me where it belongs in the set of 14 models that I've identified. Usually they are unable to do so because they want it to be a mixture of several models, but the 14 models are mutually incompatible. (Note: it's possible to subdivide some of the 14 models into variant versions too, but there's usually no need to do so - the option's always there though when needed.)
You deny that you do this mixing of interpretations, but I'm trying to be quite explicit about pointing out where you very much do.
And again you're wrong to do so - I have put the models in fully distinct compartments and never mix them, but I frequently have to argue against people who insist on mixing them. There is no place anywhere here or anywhere else where I have mixed models.
You may find places where I have said things that apply to multiple models at once, but that isn't mixing them.