Re: The physical paradox of the twins.

From: Peter Kinane (pkinane_at_iol.ie)
Date: 08/25/04 

Date: 25 Aug 2004 05:47:59 -0700

"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e9b03d3c.0408241629.567459a8@posting.google.com...
> pkinane@iol.ie (Peter Kinane) wrote in message news:<d8097fcc.0408240300.16e56a14@posting.google.com>...
> > "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e9b03d3c.0408231839.61eed5ac@posting.google.com...
> > > pkinane@iol.ie (Peter Kinane) wrote in message news:<d8097fcc.0408230458.250737df@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > In <d8097fcc.0408230458.250737df@posting.google.com>
> > > pkinane@iol.ie (Peter Kinane) wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > <deletes by O'Barr>
> > >
> > > Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com> comments:
> > > I gave you a scientific response. You did not
> > > respond with a scientific response. I see little
> > > reason to continue. I will respond to a few of your
> > > comments, at least this time. But if you cannot stay
> > > focused on the science, there is no reason to
> > > continue!
> >
> > I like to think the point I raised, adressing your "important physical
> > facts: 1) []", and which you snipped, bears on your 'science'.
> >
> > It was developing as follows:
> > ** > Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com> comments:
> > > What you described above for listeners of an
> > > orchestra in a concert hall might be exactly correct!
> > > But what I usually say, in such a situation, is that
> > > my Aunt May makes the best apple pie in the world!
> > > Does that change anything that has been said?
> >
> > Is it consistent with
> > * 1) We all live in the same physical reality! It
> > does not matter whether one is moving this way or
> > that way, whether one is in one reference frame or
> > another reference frame, we will and we do all see
> > the same events! The coordinates we use to describe
> > any one event might of course vary, but we clearly
> > see every event as everyone else sees these events. * ? ** ?
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com> comments:
> As was well indicated in a previous post, that
> according to the science of SR, different listeners
> located at different seats in a concert hall are not
> allowed to say what is going on in that room by what
> they personally hear. What they personally hear
> might all be different depending upon where they are
> sitting, just as you said. But in the science of SR,
> to scientifically determine what is going on in the
> room, or any place else, requires what are called
> 'local observers.' That is, only observers at the
> exact points where the music is being made can say
> what really happened.
> Therefore, all observers in this room, using SR,
> would have the same local observers observing at the
> points where each music instrument was located. And
> these local observers would report back to all the
> listeners the exact same results. So in SR, the
> reality in any one fame is identical to all those in
> that frame! And you seemed to not even understand
> what was being said. SR science is very exact and
> very specific, and it is not opened to interpretation
> in terms of what is mathematically measured. In all
> these things, SR is not 'relative!'
> Now exactly what physically happens, and how it
> happens, or why it happens, these things are opened
> to interpretations. You need to come up to speed in
> what I believe if you want to have us consider
> something else!
>
> Thanks for reading.
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com>

Let me start by saying, in disagreement, that in all these things SR
_is_ "relative". A frame of reference, of "local observers", observing
whatever criteria SR elects to observe- -express is observed-
-expressed. Now, of course, given my formulation of the nature of
'Nature', one has to select a frame of reference and get on with
business - so no fault with physicists there. But they sure are
burdened by poor standard philosophy which is past its sell-by date.
Little wonder you say
"Now exactly what physically happens, and how it happens, or why it
happens, these things are opened to interpretations.".

To try to elucidate:
Re "according to the science of SR, different listeners located at
different seats in a concert hall are not allowed to say what is
going on in that room by what they personally hear.": 'What a
fascinating and charming system and how true to life'.

Re "But in the science of SR, to scientifically determine what is
going on in the room, []": Here it selects its criteria - its frame
of reference - here it _is_ "relative" (even if it opts for a one size
fits all tyranny).

Re "That is, only observers at the exact points where the music is
being made can say what really happened. ": Of course you admit that
SR does not know what really happens, "Now exactly what physically
happens, and how it happens, or why it happens, these things are
opened to interpretations.". Again, it does not make adequate sense
to me, and so I do not expect myself to show sense of it, but, let's
try this (nonsense): the "local observers" report what instruments
were present in their vicinity and what the players did with their
fingers, perhaps and perhaps not also reporting the sounds they heard.
They each repeated their report to each of the remote observers (in
the same order :) ) and the observers (being clones :) ) each computed
the reports and registered the exact same absolute reality - and all
agreed that it was a very uplifting and inspiring performance, which
filled them with wonder at the richness and diversity of 'Nature'.

Re "So in SR, the reality in any one fame is identical to all those
in that frame!": This seems a problematic concept of "frame" - but
what else is new.

Re "And you seemed to not even understand what was being said.": Is
that a compliment?

Re "SR [] is not opened to interpretation in terms of what is
mathematically measured.": No problem.

Re "In all these things, SR is not 'relative!'": In all these things
SR is crude, "relative" and expresses old- -conventional philosophy
that just is not comprehensively coherent and tends towards the
tyranny of uniformity - with consequent more absolutist yes or no
simplistic type collisions.

Re "Now exactly what physically happens, and how it happens, or why
it happens, these things are opened to interpretations.": Fair play
to you for taking a stand on this issue.

Re "You need to come up to speed in what I believe if you want to have
us consider something else!": You need to slow down here if you are
not to go off chasing your tail.

So, I have said what I was going to say, I have said it, but I think I
will pass on saying what I said - other than that I was analysing
stuff that I would like to see retired to a concept museum.

Have you heard of TECCS? :) 

-- 
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499
Note: I have changed the directions of the Sun and  the Earth:
"Alternatively, let's log the event based on half yearly intervals, or
0.5 yrs. SES's:
P_0(x_0, y_0, z_0, t_0), 
P_1(x_0.001, y0.011, z_0/?, t_0.5). 
P_2(x_0.002, y_0.002, z_0/?, t_1.0). 
P_3(x_0.003, y_0.033, z_0/?, t_1.5). 
P_4(x_0.004, y_0.004, z_0/?, t_2.0)., 
and so on. A pattern emerges, as would one for various stars, etc. "
pk

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Consciousness: whats the problem?
    ... going with is *only* one of many interpretations, ... experimenter cannot be disassociated from the experiment. ... for observers, but the equations themselves do not mention ... Pardon me if I take his (and other physicists) word ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... >> three regions which cannot be connected by a lorentz transform. ... Spacelike intervals can always be made simultaneous, so all observers ... Lorentz had to assume this in order to define a frame ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ton of Bricks Paradox/Contradiction?
    ... Yes, but that direction is *towards* one of the observers, ... either in the stationary frame, ... According to the observers' own, synchronised clocks, ... explained before, clock synchronization is frame-dependent. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ton of Bricks Paradox/Contradiction?
    ... Yes, but that direction is *towards* one of the observers, ... either in the stationary frame, ... Since the observers' accelerations ... specify a synchronization procedure. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... Clocks and rulers in motion wrt the ether frame behave as ... >>> described by a Lorentz transform from the ether frame. ... doesn't work anywhere except outside the light cone on spacelike ... for observers who are causally connected, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)