Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Sithri » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:32 am

SRT and GRT has many philosophical problems that I am aware of. Please tell me if I'm wrong about these philosophical problems, or my understanding of SRT and GRT in these problems. Here's a list of problems with SRT and GRT in philosophy:

A quick joke about Relativists and then onto the problems:

Question: Why should followers of General and Special Relativity not be taken seriously?

Answer: They fail to see the gravity of the situation.

A Reductio ad Absurdum with the Invariancy of Celeritas and LIght-clocks

Does the idea that the speed of light is invariate in all frames ensure the light-clocks synchronicity, or does it not?

1, As the embankment observer sees this contraction and dilation of the train moving appreciably close to c, and the train looking at the embankment observer sees this contraction and dilation when moving appreciably close to c. However, how can both be at different rates of ticking on their light-clocks? Embankment>train, and train>embankment. Thus there is a contradiction.

2. But then to the person in the train looking at the interior of the train it would not occur to them that their clock is faster or slower and the light-clock would be invariant due to them not observing their own length-contraction and time-dilation. Neither would the embankment observer see their own length-contraction and time-dilation.

3. Therefore, the observer outside of the train looking at himself on the embankment,and with the observer inside the train looking at himself, the embankment clock and the train clock would be synchronous at the same time! Therefore the clocks are synchronized with both but they do not know it because they are both looking at their own light-clocks.

4. But let’s say it’s a glass train, due to their own non-seeing of their own length-contraction or time-dilation, while also viewing their own invariance of time, and due to observing the other’s time-dilation or length contraction, then both observers would both see and not see synchronicity ! A contradiction in terms.

5. Thus there is either contradiction or synchronization.



Reductio ad Absurdum with Shared Consciousness

Let us say that Embankment Observer and Train Observer had shared consciousness. Let us say that both have two cameras and TV screen connected with a live feed and both have light-clocks of their own. The Embankment Observer had a TV, with a camera looking at the Embankment from the Train’s own Point-of-View and a camera looking at the inside of the Train. And the Train Observer with a camera looking at the Train from the Embankment’s Point-of-View and a camera looking at the Embankment from it’s own Point-of-View, with the TV giving him the live feed. Thus they share a consciousness in a sense. Now, would both observe the same thing or not?





Invariance and Clock Speed and Special Relativity Theory

I think the main problem with relativity is confusing distance traveled with speed. If I have a light-clock and another light-clock is ticking faster, it doesn’t mean the speed of light has changed for both, it means the distance traveled differs. Thus how can a light-clock function as a meaningful clock whenever it changes its distance traveled but not its speed? If we relied upon a light-clock to tell us time, I don’t see how the light-clock is a real manifestation of a real time. No one would age any differently because of a sundial speeding up or slowing down. Likewise, with the light-clock, only if the speed of light changed would time itself truly change.



Ellipsoids, Spheres, and SRT

If light is given off as a spherical wavefront from a certain light-clock, and if the motion of the light-clock on a train is sufficient, then length-contraction and time-dilation and/or following geodesics would occur. If so, would it deform the light’s geometry to an ellipsoid since it travels through this space and time that is contracted and dilated?

If the light’s geometry is an ellipsoid, then it is a non-inertial reference frame, and, on top of that, it wouldn’t travel as a sphere even though it must in all inertial frames due to the invariance of the speed of light in all directions. However, it must be an ellipsoid or else the ‘ticking’ of the light-clock wouldn’t change according to time-dilation, length-contraction, or geodesics.

Also, if everything around the light was dilated, wouldn’t this exclude the light? What is the boundary between the light and its surroundings?

Evolution and SRT

Why haven’t we evolved to see things in 4-d space-time if it is truly the reality?

The Present and SRT

If the present exists, then instead of time being a dot on a timeline, it is more of a cycle through time. If the present exists, then so does simultaneity, which in itself disproves Einstein’s SRT.

Oscillating Electromagnetism and the invalidity of SRT with such

If electric fields and magnetic fields are both oscillating in Electromagnetic Radiation, then that means that neither of them are at rest with regard to one another. If Special Relativity is to be true, then that means we must treat light like a wire with either a magnetic or electric charge bisecting it. However, light itself is not like a wire, and has both magnetic and electric fields oscillating. If we get rid of the Electric field of light, we don’t have a magnetic field, and if we get rid of the Magnetic field for light, we don’t have an electric field; this means that neither can be at rest in Electromagnetic radiation, and therefore there is a privileged frame of reference that light takes, and/or Einstein is wrong and there isn’t a singular magnetic or electric reference frame that is at rest with regard to the other. If wires are bisected by a magnet it creates a current because it pulls the magnetic charge of the electrons in the wire and therefore moves the electrons. We must not forget that this is due to macro-proportioned physics and geometry, while quantum physics deals with electromagnetism in a quantum-circuit that is the electron that is electric and magnetic and gravitational, all of them being simple force laws and geometry that is different than a wire.

Proving General Relativity Wrong with privileged law

Why does the General Theory of Relativity work for gravity, instead of being a force it rather is the curving of space-time, but not for magnetism or electrostatic charge? In other words, why is gravity the only thing that curves space-time but not electrostatic charge or magnetism? Why is it given this privileged position?

Proving General Relativity Wrong with Energy-Mass density

Also, if the energy-mass density is what makes the curvature of space-time, then we must include the energy of the electrostatic and magnetic fields, which would make the energy-mass density higher than the sole mass-density, which would render the gravitational curvature more than it is supposed to be to be equivalent to Newton’s Law.

Proving SRT wrong through consciousness bias

Einstein used observers that looked at clocks in trains and on embankments in order for his Special Relativity theory to work. However, would nature itself observe the same discrepancy that humans or any consciousness do or will do? If there weren’t an observer, would SRT still be valid? For instance, the observer in the train sees two lightning strikes at different times, but the observer on the embankment sees them at the same time. Is this not a consciousness bias instead of a natural bias?
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Orion » Wed Jan 30, 2019 4:07 pm

Oops looks like I tried to answer these dilemmas by posting my work "Signal Observability at Hyper Light Velocity" on the forum New Insights and Mad Ideas. My apology I am new at this. I do not intend to hijack the current conversation. In my paper I show how time, space, the velocity of the Signal Source, and the position of the observer are related to signal observability. It turns out to be geometric, no need to warp anything, all clocks tick at the same rate. It show that using time as now, always increasing in a more positive sense, is consistent with the observability hypothesis. In other words we can set up a future experiment and start it a time = 0 s and watch how things progress. Any attempt to make time go (-1) is a math trick and not applicable to the physics in the Universe, the Universe we live in and have to deal with. The undefined terms, divide by 0 relationship, in Einstein Special Relativity (1905) are removed by placing the Observer of the signals closer to the axis of the Signal Source velocity vector and ahead of the moving Source so that the signals can be observed. Please read and advise me on how to best proceed.
Orion
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:39 am

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Sithri » Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:46 pm

Orion wrote:Oops looks like I tried to answer these dilemmas by posting my work "Signal Observability at Hyper Light Velocity" on the forum New Insights and Mad Ideas. My apology I am new at this. I do not intend to hijack the current conversation. In my paper I show how time, space, the velocity of the Signal Source, and the position of the observer are related to signal observability. It turns out to be geometric, no need to warp anything, all clocks tick at the same rate. It show that using time as now, always increasing in a more positive sense, is consistent with the observability hypothesis. In other words we can set up a future experiment and start it a time = 0 s and watch how things progress. Any attempt to make time go (-1) is a math trick and not applicable to the physics in the Universe, the Universe we live in and have to deal with. The undefined terms, divide by 0 relationship, in Einstein Special Relativity (1905) are removed by placing the Observer of the signals closer to the axis of the Signal Source velocity vector and ahead of the moving Source so that the signals can be observed. Please read and advise me on how to best proceed.


I think the writing in this page applies to your idea:

Proving SRT wrong through consciousness bias

Einstein used observers that looked at clocks in trains and on embankments in order for his Special Relativity theory to work. However, would nature itself observe the same discrepancy that humans or any consciousness do or will do? If there weren’t an observer, would SRT still be valid? For instance, the observer in the train sees two lightning strikes at different times, but the observer on the embankment sees them at the same time. Is this not a consciousness bias instead of a natural bias?
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby ToEmaster » Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:31 am

Einstein gave properties, power and significance to two human contrivance that don’t exist in nature.
There is not a cubic inch of empty space in the universe. Space is filled with electromagnetic radiation and matter from myriads of sources.
Time is a human invention from the observation of periodic events: sunrise-sunset, moon phases, birth and death etc. There is no absolute time. Einstein and his followers confuse time with its measuring device, the clock.
Therefore the whole theory is false.

The last real science was Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Faraday’s etc. when theories were tested and science was relatable and tangible. Science got corrupted and distorted since then.
Simplicity, elegance and common sense are the greatest measures of intelligence.
ToEmaster
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:22 pm

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Sithri » Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:56 pm

ToEmaster wrote:Einstein gave properties, power and significance to two human contrivance that don’t exist in nature.
There is not a cubic inch of empty space in the universe. Space is filled with electromagnetic radiation and matter from myriads of sources.
Time is a human invention from the observation of periodic events: sunrise-sunset, moon phases, birth and death etc. There is no absolute time. Einstein and his followers confuse time with its measuring device, the clock.
Therefore the whole theory is false.

The last real science was Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Faraday’s etc. when theories were tested and science was relatable and tangible. Science got corrupted and distorted since then.

I completely agree! I think the only absolute time is quantized time in Quantum Physics, which derives from the speed of light. However, there is a range of frequencies that span from a micron to a mile in wavelength.

If we look at light as Einstein said it would be, it would require time-dilation or length-contraction in order for it to remain the same distance traveled, and therefore requires that simultaneity is impossible. However, while contradictory, if we look at light as we should, we would see light as pure simultaneity, a photon that remains in the present no matter what distance it travels, and because it remains in the present, it remains the same speed. Because light doesn't have Galilean frame-dependency in that it doesn't travel from a moving source with the source's velocity added to it, simply means that light is in the present all the time, while matter is out of the present in either forwards or backwards time. The fact that two photons are derived from a positron and electron combining means that the photons are 1/2 of the mass the electron and positron combined, yet has 1-spin on its time, which makes it in the present, because a positron is backwards time and an electron is forwards time, which combine to form the present. Light can best be described by oscillating magnetic and electric fields that are a wave in the ether, which is the reason why it has a constant velocity due to the permeability and permittivity of the ether, which the ether in itself is based in resonance of orthogonal frequencies of magnetic and electrostatic charge, which together form simultaneity of the present.
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:34 pm

Sithri wrote:SRT and GRT has many philosophical problems..

I don't think philosophy matters.
If you define "observer" in a philosophical way, then you create a problem.
An "observer" can be anything.
I also find the twins and train "paradoxes" philosophical, as they describe situations
that we can not test at all.
This is not a problem with your ideas, it is a problem introduced by relativity proponents,
and has nothing to do with the fundamental problems of SR/GR.

I think we should focus on the actual practical physical problems.
That way your statements become clearer and we can have a better discussion.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Sithri » Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:41 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Sithri wrote:SRT and GRT has many philosophical problems..

I don't think philosophy matters.
If you define "observer" in a philosophical way, then you create a problem.
An "observer" can be anything.
I also find the twins and train "paradoxes" philosophical, as they describe situations
that we can not test at all.
This is not a problem with your ideas, it is a problem introduced by relativity proponents,
and has nothing to do with the fundamental problems of SR/GR.

I think we should focus on the actual practical physical problems.
That way your statements become clearer and we can have a better discussion.

Philosophy certainly matters because scientists are all philosophers whenever they propose hypotheses or test hypotheses and then revise, or throw out, or form new hypotheses depending upon the test.

The fact that philosophy deals in logic and ideas, we can see that a theory, even if mathematically and physically supported, if it isn't philosophically coherent, then it isn't a good theory. Science used to be called Natural Philosophy, and for a good reason too.

Philosophy is the basis for science, politics, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, and so on, and many people often form their own philosophies with assumptions with tests that prove that specific assumption correct without ever questioning the assumption. For instance, in psychology's early behaviorist days there was a philosophy of psychology called Gestalt psychology, and they devised specific tests to prove their viewpoint without ever questioning if the idea of Gestalt psychology itself is true or not. Likewise, the scientific method is a philosophy in itself, and our naturalistic materialism is something that is assumed as a part of science even if it is an ontological and metaphysical assumption that isn't questioned.

Even though we assume naturalistic materialism we see other metaphysical components in science, such as the space-time continuum, dark energy, energy, the ether, philosophy of time, philosophy of special relativity dealing with observers and time and light, and so on.
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:20 pm

You are making a physical and mathematical problem into a philosophical problem.
This mixes up your logic.
This means you can not even start to use philosophy.

"Observer" does not mean "consciousness".
"Time" in maths does not mean "time" even in physics.

I think the problem with SR/GR started by mixing all concepts together.
SR defines "Time" from the speed of light.
The black hole maths is using both Newton's gravity and some of GR.

The big bang is based on a random single mathematical parameter (lambda) and astronomers
pretend that this is some kind of proof. Even when it varies (dark energy problem).
The lambda was first added to compensate for the loss of energy in a GR's gravity system.
Later it is suddenly used to create energy out of nothing.
This is bad physics, but astronomy is flawed in so many ways so that it does not matter so much.

Physics on the other hand has a connection with testable reality.
This is where it shines, and where we can see some problems with SR/GR.

Yet in your philosophical statements you mix up the more mathematical definitions
of time /space /observer in SR/GR with those in philosophy.

Why haven’t we evolved to see things in 4-d space-time if it is truly the reality?


This answer shows how much you are away from the physical basic concept.
You now suddenly introduce evolution and your idea of how evolution should work.

Einstein did not add an extra dimension in SR, even in physics.
He uses time as a dimension inside a mathematical formulation to describe
a relationship between physical observable things.

If the present exists, then instead of time being a dot on a timeline, it is more of a cycle through time. If the present exists, then so does simultaneity, which in itself disproves Einstein’s SRT.

I have no idea what you were trying to explain here.
You suddenly introduce a "cycle through time".
And "simultaneity" works different in SR.
In SR "time" is a mathematical concept relative to speed.
That is how it is used, and that gives no problems.
It is not how it is explained sadly, which causes all these philosophical problems.

Proving General Relativity Wrong with privileged law
[/quote][/quote]
Makes no sense either.
You are just stating that gravity is different from Electromagnetism.
Maybe because they are different forces?

It appears to me that you mix concepts of maths with philosophical concepts about reality.
Something that is very common and is done by most people.

I still think it makes no sense to talk about any philosophical problem in relation with SR/GR.
The proponents of SR/GR already wrote books about that with a lot of science fiction.
So unless you want to discuss science fiction (like worm holes), talking about it philosophically makes no sense.

On the other hand, S.J.Croters makes a lot of sense.
See for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCmEyK4YLdI
He shows problems with SR and GR via the maths that they use.
It would be very interesting to discuss his findings.

Summary
You can disproof maths with maths
You can disproof physics with experiments
You can disproof philosophy logically by disproving the axioms
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Sithri » Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:51 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:You are making a physical and mathematical problem into a philosophical problem.
This mixes up your logic.
This means you can not even start to use philosophy.

"Observer" does not mean "consciousness".
"Time" in maths does not mean "time" even in physics.


Then how would you define 'observer' without 'consciousness'? This is an underlying philosophical problem with SRT.

Zyxzevn wrote:I think the problem with SR/GR started by mixing all concepts together.
SR defines "Time" from the speed of light.
The black hole maths is using both Newton's gravity and some of GR.


Wrong, SRT doesn't define time by the speed of light, but rather the distance it travels, which incurs length-contraction and time-dilation which makes simultaneity impossible. Time itself is poorly defined as the light-clock, which has distance travelled equated with 'time.'
Zyxzevn wrote:The big bang is based on a random single mathematical parameter (lambda) and astronomers
pretend that this is some kind of proof. Even when it varies (dark energy problem).
The lambda was first added to compensate for the loss of energy in a GR's gravity system.
Later it is suddenly used to create energy out of nothing.
This is bad physics, but astronomy is flawed in so many ways so that it does not matter so much.

Physics on the other hand has a connection with testable reality.
This is where it shines, and where we can see some problems with SR/GR.

Yet in your philosophical statements you mix up the more mathematical definitions
of time /space /observer in SR/GR with those in philosophy.


Mathematics can be used in a philosophy. Mathematics itself derived from ancient philosophy itself, and is a philosophy so rigorous that proofs can be made that are indisputable in the realm of logic.

Zyxzevn wrote:
Why haven’t we evolved to see things in 4-d space-time if it is truly the reality?


This answer shows how much you are away from the physical basic concept.
You now suddenly introduce evolution and your idea of how evolution should work.

Einstein did not add an extra dimension in SR, even in physics.
He uses time as a dimension inside a mathematical formulation to describe
a relationship between physical observable things.


Einstein formulated space-time which behaves as a medium that has metaphysical meaning, at least in GRT. If our consciousnesses evolved within a 4-d space-time continuum in GRT, then why don't we perceive things according to this metaphysical substrate? It would seem that in the beginning of our evolution we would have began to develop organs that perceive space-time in this manner if it is the truth of space and time itself.

Zyxzevn wrote:
If the present exists, then instead of time being a dot on a timeline, it is more of a cycle through time. If the present exists, then so does simultaneity, which in itself disproves Einstein’s SRT.

I have no idea what you were trying to explain here.
You suddenly introduce a "cycle through time".
And "simultaneity" works different in SR.
In SR "time" is a mathematical concept relative to speed.
That is how it is used, and that gives no problems.
It is not how it is explained sadly, which causes all these philosophical problems.


The present itself, if it exists, would give simultaneity to all things. All things that occur in the present are simultaneous with the present. If the present exists then SRT is wrong.
Zyxzevn wrote:
Proving General Relativity Wrong with privileged law

Makes no sense either.
You are just stating that gravity is different from Electromagnetism.
Maybe because they are different forces?

It appears to me that you mix concepts of maths with philosophical concepts about reality.
Something that is very common and is done by most people.


Why is it that gravity is the only force that bends space-time? If we were to remain logical, all of the forces should bend space-time to have their geometry of incidence occur which would prove that General Relativity isn't an isolated case. Why is it that all of the other forces also don't bend space-time in geometry to have their forces evident? Isn't this unsettling if not baffling?

Zyxzevn wrote:I still think it makes no sense to talk about any philosophical problem in relation with SR/GR.
The proponents of SR/GR already wrote books about that with a lot of science fiction.
So unless you want to discuss science fiction (like worm holes), talking about it philosophically makes no sense.

On the other hand, S.J.Croters makes a lot of sense.
See for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCmEyK4YLdI
He shows problems with SR and GR via the maths that they use.
It would be very interesting to discuss his findings.

Summary
You can disproof maths with maths
You can disproof physics with experiments
You can disproof philosophy logically by disproving the axioms


And you can disprove maths with philosophy, physics with philosophy and philosophy with philosophy. Philosophy is the mother of science. If we didn't philosophize the Scientific Method, where would science be now? And if we don't philosophize whenever we form hypotheses and theories, where would science be? Mathematics is not a tool of creating science, it is a tool of describing science. Experiment is a way of testing and creating hypotheses and gaining observations. You cannot gain an observation by using mathematics solely unless the mathematics is tied to experiment and derived from experiment.
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Orion » Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:56 pm

From wiki on Special Relativity, "Events that occur at the same time for one observer can occur at different times for another."

The above wiki statement from Special Relativity does not match reality. Imagine all observers everywhere near each other with synchronized clocks. synchronized clocks means they all say the same time. Now these observers with their clocks move very slowly away from each other to distant parts of the universe. Each clock rate remains the same and they all still say the same time. Now at some time one observer initiates a signal that leaves her position at midnight. This marks time = T0 on all clocks. We realize that as all clocks keep ticking the signal reaches different observers at different times depending on how far away they are from the signal source. When one observer sees the signal two day later it just means that that observer is two light days away from the signal source. Another observer sees the signal on day 3. This observer is 3 light days away from the source. Now in this section all observers have velocity 0 with respect to each other. The observation of the signal by day 2 and day 3 observer does not imply three different events.

Having moving sources complicates the math but it does not change clock tick rates. Observers can put marks on clocks to show a history of seeing things via light signals. The time difference between seeing these signals is the same as starting and stopping a stop watch. Well the stop watch tick rate and all observer tick rates remain constant. In this example the velocity of the source is constant also. What can be different for different observers is (1) when the observer sees the signal in reference to the Source initiation of the signal and (2) the time difference between signals. A moving source may put out two signals say 3 seconds apart. A stationary observer may see on their stop watch 2.5 seconds between the signals. This does not mean that time is warping or space is bending in some Lorentz formulation. We cannot ignore the time delay of the signals reaching the stationary observer and the observer position in relationship to the velocity vector of Signal Source.
Orion
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:39 am

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Sithri » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:46 am

Orion wrote:From wiki on Special Relativity, "Events that occur at the same time for one observer can occur at different times for another."

The above wiki statement from Special Relativity does not match reality. Imagine all observers everywhere near each other with synchronized clocks. synchronized clocks means they all say the same time. Now these observers with their clocks move very slowly away from each other to distant parts of the universe. Each clock rate remains the same and they all still say the same time. Now at some time one observer initiates a signal that leaves her position at midnight. This marks time = T0 on all clocks. We realize that as all clocks keep ticking the signal reaches different observers at different times depending on how far away they are from the signal source. When one observer sees the signal two day later it just means that that observer is two light days away from the signal source. Another observer sees the signal on day 3. This observer is 3 light days away from the source. Now in this section all observers have velocity 0 with respect to each other. The observation of the signal by day 2 and day 3 observer does not imply three different events.

Having moving sources complicates the math but it does not change clock tick rates. Observers can put marks on clocks to show a history of seeing things via light signals. The time difference between seeing these signals is the same as starting and stopping a stop watch. Well the stop watch tick rate and all observer tick rates remain constant. In this example the velocity of the source is constant also. What can be different for different observers is (1) when the observer sees the signal in reference to the Source initiation of the signal and (2) the time difference between signals. A moving source may put out two signals say 3 seconds apart. A stationary observer may see on their stop watch 2.5 seconds between the signals. This does not mean that time is warping or space is bending in some Lorentz formulation. We cannot ignore the time delay of the signals reaching the stationary observer and the observer position in relationship to the velocity vector of Signal Source.


I think the flaw in your reasoning in the first paragraph is that the observers have velocity 0 with respect to one another, while they have light-days in-between events which is caused by them moving away from one another.

If they have velocity 0 with respect to one another, then we would see them all moving in the same direction as well as the same speed as the same vectors.

This would mean that they would all see each others signals just as if they were all still, at velocity 0.

However, if this is true, then velocity itself wouldn't matter, and there would be no time-dilation or length-contraction even though they are all moving, at least as long as the velocity isn't close to celeritas.

It depends upon their relative velocities, and if they are moving close enough to celeritas they would all see signals at at the same time regardless of the distance that the light in their light-clocks are moving, which would mean that they all have length-contraction and time-dilation that is equal to one another and they all gain the same amount of mass due to their velocities even though their effective velocity is 0 with regard to one another.

This is a flaw in SRT as well!
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:54 pm

Sithri wrote:Then how would you define 'observer' without 'consciousness'? This is an underlying philosophical problem with SRT.


In SR there is no observer, while there is often written about one.

In SR your coordinate system is always standing still.
So if there is movement, the coordinate system is adapted in space/time to pretend it is not moving.
And from that coordinate system you calculate everything.

The still coordinate system is sometimes called "the observer".
And there is the confusion.
So there is not really an observer.
And this is does not relate to consciousness at all.

The point you bring up about consciousness is much more philosophical and has nothing to do with SR/GR.
It is similar to:
"Does a tree fall when there is no-one who can see it?"
Or:
"Is anything that we see actually real?"
Or:
"Can observing something also change something?"
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Sithri » Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:41 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Sithri wrote:Then how would you define 'observer' without 'consciousness'? This is an underlying philosophical problem with SRT.


In SR there is no observer, while there is often written about one.

In SR your coordinate system is always standing still.
So if there is movement, the coordinate system is adapted in space/time to pretend it is not moving.
And from that coordinate system you calculate everything.

The still coordinate system is sometimes called "the observer".
And there is the confusion.
So there is not really an observer.
And this is does not relate to consciousness at all.

The point you bring up about consciousness is much more philosophical and has nothing to do with SR/GR.
It is similar to:
"Does a tree fall when there is no-one who can see it?"
Or:
"Is anything that we see actually real?"
Or:
"Can observing something also change something?"


IF I understand Einstein's light-clock train-embankment thought experiment, even the one inside the train that is moving is an observer. Anything except accelerating reference frames can be a ''observer' or 'reference frame source'. In fact, the source of all reference frames ARE observers. For instance, in his train-embankment thought experiment, would nature by itself observe the same thing if there weren't observers? Do you believe that nature parses neatly and primly specific events into reference frames to where they have varying times and lengths due to their reference frame?


Clocks aren't real manifestations of time; they require observers to say what time it is in relation to whatever physical manifestation it is based in. For instance, we define a second as part of the rotation of the earth. But if we wanted to, we could define a second with respect to the periodicity of a binary star pair's orbits as one cycle per time.

Just because light-speed is constant doesn't give us a differing 'time', only the distance it travels. If we were to see a true 'time-dilation' we would see light changing its speed.

It's pulling a rabbit out of a hat to say that time changed due to distance light travels, but yet claim that light speed is invariant. Why not say that the speed of light changed but with the distance it travels which would give a constant time? Wouldn't that be equivalent?
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby Roshi » Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:36 am

Sithri wrote:
It's pulling a rabbit out of a hat to say that time changed due to distance light travels, but yet claim that light speed is invariant. Why not say that the speed of light changed but with the distance it travels which would give a constant time? Wouldn't that be equivalent?


This is heresy. The speed of light can't change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second.

It's one of those things we know for certain about the Universe.

And what is a "second"?
1 second is defined to be exactly "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K)


Question: Does nothing else, except temperature affect the caesium atom? Things like the pull gravity, the magnetic field of the Earth, acceleration, EM radiation? If we keep it at 0 K, it will keep oscillating exactly at the number above, no matter where? And how do we know if it starts to go faster or slower?

See the definition above. It says "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods". And what do we use to measure "the duration"? Another clock :P Time does not exist, the Universe is in constant change, that is true, but "time", is just humans counting various periodic processes.
Roshi
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

Unread postby jacmac » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:54 pm

Roshi:
Time does not exist, the Universe is in constant change, that is true, but "time", is just humans counting various periodic processes.

Yes.Time is not a thing.
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 576
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Next

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests