Re: Evil Twin Paradox

On Aug 8, 1:12 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Alen" <al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1186495493.751336.301890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Aug 7, 5:41 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Alen" <al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1186461484.047250.40000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[...]

Then what do they believe? Do you agree with me
that Minkowski spacetime is not an actual, physical reality?

Minkowski diagrams are calculation aids. Many physicists simply want to
calculate and have stopped trying to make sense of things, and tend to take
things at face-value. For example Feynman even claimed: "I hope you can
accept Nature as she is - absurd."

If, indeed, physics has taken a wrong turn somewhere,
such a situation would be inevitable. It should therefore be
taken to be a symptom of the existence of at least one
erroneous concept. I have identified the physical reality
of Minkowski spacetime as an erroneous concept,
though I no longer expect anyone who still adheres to it to
be flexible enough to question it. Until erroneous concepts
are eliminated, however, physics must continue to be
paradoxical in respect of such a concept.


If spacetime rotations are not supposed to be
physically real, then arbitrary fulcra of rotations
can be used as desired.

No, the rotation is determined by the Lorentz factor (and thus by the
speed).
Minkowski diagrams provide a handy graphical means to directly match clock
readings and distances of one inertial coordinate system with those of
another inertial system that moves relative to it (note that neither system
rotates!).

[...]

Regards,
Harald

Of course it is determined by the speed. I have never
questioned that. My question concerns the FULCRUM of
the spacetime rotation. But now you apparently say, like
I do, that there is no real, physical spacetime rotation!?
Do you accept, therefore, that length contraction requires
a different physical explanation than that of a spacetime
rotation?

Perhaps if you were to acknowledge that it does, you
would become a 'crackpot' and destroy your reputation?
Even allowing that Minkowski spacetime is only a 'handy
graphical means' must be very dangerous for you, unless
you have the reputation of a 'crackpot' or 'crank' already,
like I have.

Or is it the case that, secretly, numbers of physicists really
know that there is no real Minkowski spacetime, but are not
able to admit it publicly?

Alen


.

Relevant Pages

  • Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
    ... By studying the effect of thermodynamics, physicists came to the ... began to study one individual particle. ... Mathematicians use Non- Euclidian geometry and they do not know ... Minkowski spacetime was born in SRT. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evil Twin Paradox
    ... I suspect that a majority of physicists ... that Minkowski spacetime is not an actual, ... I like the HHGTTG quote: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evil Twin Paradox
    ... I suspect that a majority of physicists ... that Minkowski spacetime is not an actual, ... I like the HHGTTG quote: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evil Twin Paradox
    ... I suspect that a majority of physicists ... that Minkowski spacetime is not an actual, ... the rotation is determined by the Lorentz factor (and thus by the ... how does an inertial frame establish the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities?
    ... volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle? ... Physicists, by and large, don't believe in physical singularities. ...
    (sci.physics)