- Thank you received: 0
Infinite quantity, infinite space, finite options?
19 years 1 month ago #12724
by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Have you read Tom's article (What the GPS tells us about the Twin's Paradox) about this? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, I hadn’t; now I have. I haven’t yet fully assimilated the article, but already I see some flaws in TVF’s logic. First of all, Einstein made it perfectly clear that SR has no validity where gravity or acceleration play a role. TVF is attempting to make SR applicable where relative speed is constant, but relative velocity changes. Even if this turns out to be true—which I seriously doubt—we are no longer talking about SR; I shall call this new form of relativity “VR” after its inventor, Van Flandern. Any paradox that arises from TVF’s version of the twin’s round trip reveals flaws in VR, not in SR.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">He shows that acceleration is not needed to resolve it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Changing velocity is acceleration, even though the speed may be constant.
TVF, himself, admits that his relativity is flawed, except that he pretends it is not his but Einstein’s. To make you happy, I shall spend some time unraveling the flaws in VR. I’m not yet ready to explain them.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">He shows that acceleration is not needed to resolve it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Changing velocity is acceleration, even though the speed may be constant.
TVF, himself, admits that his relativity is flawed, except that he pretends it is not his but Einstein’s. To make you happy, I shall spend some time unraveling the flaws in VR. I’m not yet ready to explain them.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 1 month ago #14363
by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>Hmmm. Reality is analog, not digital.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I, too, believe that is true; but we both should admit it is not, and never can be, proven. We can only be certain that we have yet to discover a lower limit on the divisibility of space and time; unless and until we find such a limit, we may only speculate that it does not exist.
If I may philosophize for a moment:
I believe reality is a relative term; it is the degree to which our sensory inputs agree on the essence of events. An event is real to you so long as you perceive no sensory input that contradicts your imagined version of the essence of the event. In other words, your internal virtual reality (in your mind) of the external event, yields virtual sensory information from your virtual body which is identical to the actual sensory input from your physical body. If any one of your physical senses fails to match the corresponding virtual sense, you might question whether the event is real or not. If an event seems perfectly real to you, but not to anyone else, then you might question your own sanity or that of everyone else.
There is a societal reality, consisting of everything upon which all accepted members of a society publicly agree. (I’ll resist the urge to discuss the different societies and their respective realities.) To get along in a society, we must publicly accept it’s version of events, even though our own private reality may differ. The degree to which we publicly contest a society’s version of events determines the degree to which we are accepted in that society. Mild disagreement gets us banned from the country club; severe disagreement gets us executed or committed to an asylum.
Physical reality, has its own way of punishing dissent. Those who challenge the reality of fire tend to get burned; at least so it seems to those of us who do believe in fire. For all we know the charred remains that we see before us may not exist for the unbeliever, who has vanished into his own reality.
What are the consequences of a mistaken belief concerning the infinite divisibility of space and time? If there are no physical consequences, then I say there is no error. Both contradictory beliefs are correct.
If I may philosophize for a moment:
I believe reality is a relative term; it is the degree to which our sensory inputs agree on the essence of events. An event is real to you so long as you perceive no sensory input that contradicts your imagined version of the essence of the event. In other words, your internal virtual reality (in your mind) of the external event, yields virtual sensory information from your virtual body which is identical to the actual sensory input from your physical body. If any one of your physical senses fails to match the corresponding virtual sense, you might question whether the event is real or not. If an event seems perfectly real to you, but not to anyone else, then you might question your own sanity or that of everyone else.
There is a societal reality, consisting of everything upon which all accepted members of a society publicly agree. (I’ll resist the urge to discuss the different societies and their respective realities.) To get along in a society, we must publicly accept it’s version of events, even though our own private reality may differ. The degree to which we publicly contest a society’s version of events determines the degree to which we are accepted in that society. Mild disagreement gets us banned from the country club; severe disagreement gets us executed or committed to an asylum.
Physical reality, has its own way of punishing dissent. Those who challenge the reality of fire tend to get burned; at least so it seems to those of us who do believe in fire. For all we know the charred remains that we see before us may not exist for the unbeliever, who has vanished into his own reality.
What are the consequences of a mistaken belief concerning the infinite divisibility of space and time? If there are no physical consequences, then I say there is no error. Both contradictory beliefs are correct.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 1 month ago #12736
by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
[Edit: A few hours after posting, having now read the "Background" section of the second article mentioned below, I realize that I may be having crow for breakfast tomorrow morning. It's too early to know for sure, but I think I seriously misinterpreted TVF's first article on the subject. It is not my policy to sweep my errors under the rug; so I shall leave my somewhat premature comments untouched for all of you to jeer at. End of edit.]
I am ready to make a second, and hopefully final, installment in my criticism of VR, i.e., Van Flandern Relativity. This concerns TVF’s article, “ What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity ”. Ooops! I completely overlooked the more detailed " twins paradox " article. Well, I'm going to post this anyway on the assumption that the second article, which I haven't even begun to read, is just a more detailed version of the "twins paradox" portion of the first article.
I do not disagree with Tom’s explanation of the way GPS works; I’m sure he knows more about that than I do. I would, however, add that synchronizing any clock with the GPS clocks involves a light delay correction. A comparison of arrival times for the signals from several satellites tells you where you are. Knowing where you are, you may then determine how long it takes for the clock signal to reach you from each satellite. You must add that much time to the clock signal from the satellite to get your own correct Earth time.
At relativistic speed, however, there is another time correction factor to consider. Clocks synchronized to Earth time in Earth-stationary coordinates are not synchronized with one another in traveler coordinates. The difference between any two Earth clocks in traveler’s coordinates is proportional to their x-coordinate distance from the traveler (i.e., parallel to the direction of relative velocity). This must be corrected by the traveler’s GPS receiver to determine the Earth time at the receiver’s location; I doubt if any standard GPS receiver is programmed to do so. To avoid ambiguity, we should specify that the traveler’s clocks are synchronized with a clock at the North Pole as he passes it, allowing the appropriate light-delay time.
I am confused about the pre-flight correction to the traveler’s so-called GPS clock speed. Is it corrected to run at the same speed as any given Earth-coordinates clock? Or is it corrected to show the same time as each successive Earth-coordinates clock as the traveler passes it? The difference is certainly not trivial.
At the moment when the traveler synchronized his clocks with the North-Pole clock, the Earth-stationary coordinate system is contracted along the x-axis. If the traveler then changes direction, while keeping the relative speed constant, he changes the direction in which the Earth-stationary coordinate system is contracted. That changes the direction in which the SR time correction factor for the x-coordinate must be applied. That simply can’t be done without resorting to some form of general relativity.
Apparently, in VR, one may rotate the traveler’s coordinates and still pretend to have an inertial coordinate system. Sorry, Tom, but this is not up to your usual high standards. I’d delete it if I were you. Do that, and then you may delete this critique to avoid further embarrassment.
I might have more criticism after studying the second article.
I am ready to make a second, and hopefully final, installment in my criticism of VR, i.e., Van Flandern Relativity. This concerns TVF’s article, “ What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity ”. Ooops! I completely overlooked the more detailed " twins paradox " article. Well, I'm going to post this anyway on the assumption that the second article, which I haven't even begun to read, is just a more detailed version of the "twins paradox" portion of the first article.
I do not disagree with Tom’s explanation of the way GPS works; I’m sure he knows more about that than I do. I would, however, add that synchronizing any clock with the GPS clocks involves a light delay correction. A comparison of arrival times for the signals from several satellites tells you where you are. Knowing where you are, you may then determine how long it takes for the clock signal to reach you from each satellite. You must add that much time to the clock signal from the satellite to get your own correct Earth time.
At relativistic speed, however, there is another time correction factor to consider. Clocks synchronized to Earth time in Earth-stationary coordinates are not synchronized with one another in traveler coordinates. The difference between any two Earth clocks in traveler’s coordinates is proportional to their x-coordinate distance from the traveler (i.e., parallel to the direction of relative velocity). This must be corrected by the traveler’s GPS receiver to determine the Earth time at the receiver’s location; I doubt if any standard GPS receiver is programmed to do so. To avoid ambiguity, we should specify that the traveler’s clocks are synchronized with a clock at the North Pole as he passes it, allowing the appropriate light-delay time.
I am confused about the pre-flight correction to the traveler’s so-called GPS clock speed. Is it corrected to run at the same speed as any given Earth-coordinates clock? Or is it corrected to show the same time as each successive Earth-coordinates clock as the traveler passes it? The difference is certainly not trivial.
At the moment when the traveler synchronized his clocks with the North-Pole clock, the Earth-stationary coordinate system is contracted along the x-axis. If the traveler then changes direction, while keeping the relative speed constant, he changes the direction in which the Earth-stationary coordinate system is contracted. That changes the direction in which the SR time correction factor for the x-coordinate must be applied. That simply can’t be done without resorting to some form of general relativity.
Apparently, in VR, one may rotate the traveler’s coordinates and still pretend to have an inertial coordinate system. Sorry, Tom, but this is not up to your usual high standards. I’d delete it if I were you. Do that, and then you may delete this critique to avoid further embarrassment.
I might have more criticism after studying the second article.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 1 month ago #12739
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[PhilJ] " ... the second article ... "
I was wondering how you would react to discovering the third twin. I guess we will see shortly. But don't rush it. As with most of TVF's stuff, some reflection is necessary for full understanding.
===
As always, understanding is mandatory; agreement is optional.
LB
I was wondering how you would react to discovering the third twin. I guess we will see shortly. But don't rush it. As with most of TVF's stuff, some reflection is necessary for full understanding.
===
As always, understanding is mandatory; agreement is optional.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 1 month ago #14523
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
When I read the article on LR vs SR using GPS timing as an argument, I feel very comfortable with the information because if memory serves TVF actually timed them. Mark
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 1 month ago #11179
by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
It occurs to me that this is the wrong forum for discussing the "twins paradox". I'll see if there's an topic specific to Tom's articles.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.636 seconds