Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: Shubee <e.Shubee@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 06:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 5, 6:13 am, mluttg...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?
PD:
False dichotomy. Both of the alternatives you
present, which you assume to be the only ones
available, are incorrect.
SR does not say that there is something physical
that happens to the clock that alters the way
they work. Nor does SR say anything about
this being a permanent affect.
However, SR does not dismiss it as a perspective
effect or an illusion, either.
You have falsely presumed that if it is not one,
then it must be the other.
PD is correct up to this point but I question his reluctance to call
time dilation a perspective effect.
What is in fact the case is that physics is
about measurement and a theoretical structure
that allows you to predict what will be *measured*.
It does absolutely no good to have a theory
that tells you that what is going on is one thing,
but that that's not what you'll measure.
Zero points for valueless tripe.
The interesting thing about SR is that it
emphasized (not revealed nor added, but
emphasized) that there are certain assumptions
that are built into the *definition* of
measurements. For example, simultaneity of two
events is intrinsic to the *meaning* of
measured length.
I derive special relativity by first defining an inertial frame of
reference to be a Euclidean space where clock time is defined at each
point so as to satisfy a minimal set of "inertial properties." There,
measured length is defined by the metric of Euclidean space. Requiring
a definition for simultaneity doesn't even seem necessary to me,
unless you believe that the laws of physics require that clocks be
synchronized, which strikes me as an absurd notion. Most certainly the
simultaneity of two events is NOT intrinsic to the *meaning* of
measured length.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
So if simultaneity is frame-dependent, then so is length,
as length is *defined*.
Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>
It does absolutely no good, then,
to insist that length should be a frame-independent
quantity, as it is impossible to define length
as a *measurable* quantity that separates it
from simultaneity.
That's a very naive belief system that you have there. Have you never
heard of a metric space?
So then insisting that length be frame-independent
in some underlying reality is to either
a) say that the underlying reality is
unmeasurable,
That would be my preference.
or
b) define length in a self-contradictory way,
making it a one-word oxymoron.
No thank you. I reject Einstein's self-contradictory, oxymoronic
emphasis.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: PD
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: jem
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- References:
- Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: mluttgens
- Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Prev by Date: Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
- Next by Date: Re: An infinitely precise clock would run at a rate of zero seconds per second
- Previous by thread: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Next by thread: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
