What was wrong with Dingle?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Larry Burford 18 May 2006 : 09:08:25
Bob, I sensed (and still sense) real confusion rather than an attempt at a trick question. I hope that we can find the cause and fix it. I may not be expressing myself as well as I think I am.
Let’s see, you referenced my quiz from earlier this year - [thebobgy] “… in your quiz back in Jan. you asked the question “TRUE or FALSE: If a theory is internally consistent, it cannot also be wrong.” The answer was - FALSE Larry,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Maybe I should have stated my opinion more clearly back in Jan. Yes! SR is internally consistent... consistently wrong, wrong from its conception, thru its inception till its conclusion.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">*) Math CAN be about the real world. But it is not CONSTRAINED to be about the real world like physics is constrained to be about the real word.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I agree completely.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">or *) Even if a theory succeeds in the math sense, it can fail in the physics sense.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Here I disagree. Physics should define the math to be used to describe the physics not vice versa. The physics can be right and the math can be wrong but if the physics are wrong then the math is wrong.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And I used SR as an example. IIRC you got this one right. Paraphrasing my explanation of the answer to this Pop Quiz question –
1) SR actually is internally consistent.
2) SR actually does make accurate mathmaticial predictions.
3) Never the less, SR is actually not (IMO) an accurate <u>physical explanation</u> of reality.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Those statements pretty much answer my original question.

As to Ptolemaic; <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(Would you conclude from my recognition of the accurate predictions of the Ptolemaic system that I believe it is a good theory?)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Yes! I would make that conclusion, good, only not up to date. My question would be; is there a statute of limitations on good theories? []Just kidding. Thank you.
thebobgy

Jim,

I'm sorry but I do not have the link you ask for. I do remember that one of the experiments involved relativistic neutrons moving on parallel and anti-parallel trajectories. Perhaps you can find a link for us?
And yes, momentum already is a function of speed. But it becomes a different function of speed in this new model. That is (in part) why I was poking fun at it.

===

As you might imagine, the experts are not in full agreement among themselves about these things. so getting difinitive answers is not always easy. Space-time (the 4D universe of SR) is a strange place where time has been converted into something resembling distance, complete with a unit conversion to meters. All points in "time" can then be plotted just like all points in "space". On 4D graph paper, of course. ;- )

Some say this means things don't move in space-time, rather they exist for a "time" interval. Sort of like a highway exists in 3D over an extended range of spatial coordinates. It forms a wavy line on a 2D or 3D map that goes from here to there but does not exist beyond the end points. Extend that concept to the 4th dimension of time-converted-to-distance and you can perhaps see what they are trying to say about space-time. If that highway was built in 1960 and will be converted back into farm land in 2060, you can imagine that the highway exists between the "time" end points (as well as between the "space" end points), but not beyond them.

Others disagree, and have different physical interpretations of space-time. I try to not take sides, since I lean toward a different theory. Besides, it is kind of hard to keep them straight. I sometimes find myself using concepts from one interpretation while trying to understand another interpretation. Very confusing. The differing interpretations are similar to, but not quite the same as, different theories. In general the concepts of one interpretation are not compatible with the concepts of another interpretation.

But it is still interesting to think about. Mental gymnastics, as it were.

LB

Sorry, when the rocket ship’s stern is at point A, then the light flash is a at point A. Also, I have the perspective that any calculation within any frame can be made at any moment after the data is collected. It is not a requirement to make calculation at the exact moment of an events happening; as a thought experiment, the perspective is somewhat of a omni present view. Last, as a thought experiment, the premise is placed upon time dilation and space contraction. If we actually entered a design development phase, or construction phase, then correction factors would be needed. A correction factor for mass would be needed, correction factor of time delay between signals would be needed, correction factor for acceleration & deceleration would be needed. Would we have to consider the effect of material structure and framework upon the rocket ship’s mass increase? How many other correction factors would be needed? A correction factor for mass increase really is not really essential for the numbers given by my thought experiment. The approximation of the equation is asked within the limits upon motion by time dilation and space contractions only.

[ebg] "Would we have to consider the effect of material structure and framework upon the rocket ship’s mass increase?"

In the frame of the rocket and its framework and its various structres, there is no mass (or momentum or energy depending on the interpretation) increase. All of these things are stationary or moving at very small speeds with respect to each other. The mass (or whatever) increase is only a problem for observers back on Earth.

In the real world of the rocket frame, Newton rules. Just like it does back here in the real world of the Earth frame.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ebg</i>
<br />Last, as a <u>thought experiment</u>, the premise is placed upon time dilation and space contraction. A correction factor for mass increase really is not really essential for the numbers given by my <u>thought experiment</u>. <i>emphasis added</i><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> OH! It’s a thought experiment...why did you not say so in the first place. The problem with discussing thought experiments is that the thinker can change the parameters at any time just as you did with my mass increase factor. If mass increase will affect the actual experiment then you should consider thinking about it while you are thinking about the thought experiment. Something else to think about is ‘time dilation’ it is an effect imposed upon the fixed observer not the space traveler. “Dilation” means expansion or enlargement. In Srs “twin paradox” it is the earth bound twin that increases in age while the traveling twins age is changed only by the amount of time traveled. You have read “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies” haven’t you? Anyway, maybe I can be of some help when you get ready to set up the physical experiment. [] Thank you.
thebobgy

Is not aging also a function of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the loss of information with each successive generation of cells? If so, what does PG have to say about the Second Law and aging, in the context of light speed or &gt; light speed travel? Lastly, does PG offer a mechanism whereby the Second Law might be broken by constant updating of cell information, so that successive generations are not wanting?