Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

Relativity And Simple Algebra

relativity

  • Please log in to reply
1067 replies to this topic

#936 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1024 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 11:04 AM

"This reversal of causality would only occur if information could be propagated faster than c -- which is ruled out by relativity theory.  Relativity does NOT predict reversal of causality -- it predicts just the opposite."

 

Absolutely correct. So try to follow my argument. If an observer can see my future before I do that would only occur if information could be propagated faster than c -- which is ruled out by relativity theory. So for Greene or Einstein or anyone from your religion of relativity to state it's possible for an observer to see my future before I do he is contradicting relativity. Why can you not follow this? Oh yeah, I forgot, you're dumbamp.



#937 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 11:22 AM

Wow, you are stupid. 

 

Three observers may disagree on the temporal order of events. This is relative simultaneity.

 

What Greene is saying is that these three different planes of simultaneity are equivalent to slicing a loaf of bread at three different angles. The totality of existence, then, cannot be any individual plane of simultaneity, but rather ALL planes of simultaneity; i.e., the entire loaf of bread — from which it follows that the future is as fixed as the past. The indexical that we call NOW is a plane of simultaneity that slices an extant 4d reality at a particular angle. Others will slice the bread at a different angle.

 

In a sense, yes, someone could “see” my future before it happens — NOT in the sense of violating causality, but in the following sense that was originally mooted by Einstein in his train thought experiment: The ground observer sees lighting flashes hit the back and front of the train simultaneously. However, for the observer moving in the train, the flash at the front of the train happens first, and flash at the back happens later. This just IS relative simultaneity.

 

Now, in a sense, ground observer has “seen” train observer’s future — the train observer will, without fail, observe the flash at the back of the train, but sequentially, after the flash at the front, whereas the ground observer saw the flashes simultaneously. There is NO violation of causality here; however, the train observer’s future is fixed, even though he/she has not experienced it yet.



#938 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 11:31 AM

What I have just written is exemplified by the following:

 

Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif

 

 

 



#939 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 12:33 PM

"This reversal of causality would only occur if information could be propagated faster than c -- which is ruled out by relativity theory.  Relativity does NOT predict reversal of causality -- it predicts just the opposite."

 

Absolutely correct. So try to follow my argument. If an observer can see my future before I do that would only occur if information could be propagated faster than c -- which is ruled out by relativity theory. So for Greene or Einstein or anyone from your religion of relativity to state it's possible for an observer to see my future before I do he is contradicting relativity. Why can you not follow this? Oh yeah, I forgot, you're dumbamp.

 

That is not correct, as I have just demonstrated. All one needs to do is to return to Einstein's original thought experiment, of the moving train.

 

The ground observer *sees* the future of the train rider, the lightning flash at the back of the train, before the rider does, because the flashes at front and back are simultaneous for ground observer, but sequential for the train observer. How do you fail to grasp this? Nothing in this example entails faster-than-light signaling -- indeed, it is BECAUSE of the invariance of the speed of light, and light not obeying Galilean additivity, that relative simultaneity occurs. 



#940 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 12:36 PM

 For those who are still in this train wreck, and may be viewing Greene's videos, what I refer to as "planes of simultaneity," he calls "now slices." They're the same thing.



#941 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 01:18 PM

Here, Ralfie, acquaint yourself with the space-time interval. Yes, it's from a Christian web site, for those who are anti-religion, but the content is absolutely correct. Hey, Ralf, it's got math! You can follow along with the math! 



#942 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1024 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 01:31 PM

You're late to the party buddy. I've addressed all this mathematically several times in this thread. You're going to have to man up and read it. You buried yourself with this statement:

 

"from which it follows that the future is as fixed as the past."

 

You can't seem to differentiate between time on a watch and what time is. If your watch says 5 pm and mine says 4 pm, you're not from my future and I'm not from your past. Among Einstein's many blunders is he defined time as something a clock measures. He's your lord and master and you just believe whatever you're told to. Maybe if you learned some math you'd be able to think for yourself. As usual you have nothing to contribute to the discussion except what is common parrot knowledge.

 

P.S. You still seem to be under the impression we're discussing spacelike non-causal events. No, my son, we're not and if you want to sit with the adults, you're going to have to be able to follow along. I think Hannibal Lecter said that.


Edited by ralfcis, 06 September 2019 - 01:42 PM.


#943 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 01:43 PM

Unfortunately for your non-existent credibility, you have yet to address your monumental blunder, in which you say that the theory of relativity predicts that some observers will see the earth go dark before the sun winks out. This is not a claim of relativity, it is the antithesis of relativity. As discussed in the linked article above, the spacetime interval shows why you are wrong, and why you are nothing but a blathering blowhard who has not a clue about the theory that you purport to critique. Everyone will also see how you have mischaracterized Greene and his videos and writings. But who cares, heh? Like Donald Trump, you live in your own little world. And no, I'm not going to go back and read through your witless blather, as no one else reads it, either. People come to this thread for the amusement value, and to goggle at your Trump-like combination of willful ignorance and arrogance. 


Edited by Amplituhedron, 06 September 2019 - 01:46 PM.


#944 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1024 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 01:53 PM

"People come to this thread for the amusement value,"

 

And like I said it was getting a little dull before you showed up. The rest of your increasingly unhinged post (remember he who loses his temper loses the argument) has already been fully explained. If you choose to lie about what I said, it really doesn't matter if no one reads this thread now does it. mic drop


Edited by ralfcis, 06 September 2019 - 01:54 PM.


#945 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 02:00 PM

When are you going to explain, in detail and with math, how the theory of relativity, or any of Brian Greene's videos, entail that in some reference frames, a distant observer will see the earth go dark before the sun winks out? That is what you said. It's wrong. I linked to you a site that discusses this very idea, only in the case of a solar flare being observed on earth sometime later, while an alien ship passes by. It outlines the difference between spacelike, timelike and lightlike intervals, which you have never even heard of before, have you? After all these years, you still don't understand the first thing about the theory you so arrogantly purport to critique.

 

As to losing one's temper, it wasn't I who started name-calling and venomous responses toward others, it was you. So I guess by your own estimate, you have lost the argument. 



#946 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1024 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 02:07 PM

 a distant observer will see the earth go dark before the sun winks out? That is what you said.

 

No I did not. I said his example of the distant observer seeing my future, which is set in stone like you said, before I do is like saying the earth goes dark before the sun winks out. My statement was ridiculing his.

 

spacelike, timelike and lightlike intervals, which you have never even heard of before

 

More lies. How would you know if you never read my stuff.

 

Sometimes I will provoke people into losing their temper but that's within the rules of argument winning.


Edited by ralfcis, 06 September 2019 - 02:07 PM.


#947 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 02:27 PM

What's the matter, are you so hysterical at being caught out at a fundamental mistake, that you can 't even recall how to use quote tags?

 

Here is what you said:

 

 

 

This is equivalent to saying that if the sun went out, he'd be able to see from his perspective our planet go dark before the sun went out. There are no possible perspectives that contradict causality despite what Einy said.

 

​It is NOT equivalent to any such thing, as the link I provided you (with math!) shows, and, moreover,  NOTHING in Einstein's theory contradicts causality -- just the opposite.

 

Temper, temper! :lol:


Edited by Amplituhedron, 06 September 2019 - 02:30 PM.


#948 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1024 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 04:49 PM

If an outside observer can see my fixed future before I do and my future is in his present he can't warn me of my future to affect causality.  I'm saying there is no perspective, if the sun goes out,  in which the  earth will go dark first. Greene's example states the future is fixed and the future of 1 perspective can be seen from another. I'm saying this is wrong even though I agree causality can't be threatened even with a fixed future. But there's no way to see an event from any perspective before that event happens in causal time. There's no seeing a fixed future remotely before it happens locally. Once the events happen, then their order of occurrence is determined by perspective. From the platform's perspective the light will hit the rear of the oncoming train first and the front 2nd. The train will see the light hit both ends simultaneously. These perspectives don't exist until the light actually hits the back and front of the train. In causal time the rear is hit first and the front 2nd because the rear moves towards the light and the front moves away. Here is an STD showing all three perspectives:

 

https://photos.app.g...cKDQXCehKsxzW17

 

In causal time (green lines) the rear is hit at .833 and the front is hit at 1.67. From the platform's perspective (blue lines), the front is hit at .625 and the rear at 2.5. These are coordinate times like on their watches. Yes .625 is less than .833 but that does not mean it is seen first from the platform and then causal time sees it. 1.67 is less than 2.5 but that doesn't mean causal time now sees the event before platform time. There are just 2 different perspective times for the same event. The times on the red line for the train's perspective  take a little calculation but the times are both 1.25 for both ends (not shown). Three perspectives all with different times for the events have nothing to do with seeing into the future of 1 from the other. Einstein misinterpreted this to say you can. Don't you wish you had the math skills to even be able to attempt to counter this analysis?

 

PS. post 3 of this thread I mentioned timelike intervals so try using the search button before you lie.


Edited by ralfcis, 06 September 2019 - 05:07 PM.


#949 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1024 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 05:53 PM

Out of interest I did the math for perspectives greater than the train speed. As this external perspective approaches c, it sees the light hit the front of the train in near zero time but it takes near infinite time to hit the rear of the train from this perspective. So it can't even see the future for the light hitting the rear of the train. I'm pretty sure the reverse happens for a perspective at near -c. Of course damp will argue against these results philosophically without anything to back him up.



#950 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts

Posted 07 September 2019 - 12:06 PM

Amplituhedron 937;

 

 

What Greene is saying is that these three different planes of simultaneity are equivalent to slicing a loaf of bread at three different angles.

 

 

 

[Apparently he never worked in a real world bakery. You can't slice bread that hasn't been baked. The block universe is a nonsensical idea, that does not consider new events. and the act of perception. An event occurs once and is perceived multiple times.

An event E happens, and the light is dispersed throughout the universe. Since all observers, known and unknown are at varying distances, they will perceive E at varying times, depending on their motion relative to the location of E. For those who have detected the image of E, it's history. For those who are processing the image, it's 'now'. For those who haven't detected an image, it's a probability. Perception of an event now is not perception of another persons future. The most it can be is a common event in their histories.

The temporal location of an event is relative to the observer, in keeping with 'time is observer dependent'. Considering the vast astronomical distances, Earth only intercepts a tiny pencil of light from any distant source, thus most events pass us by. Locally, we never see the far side of the moon.

A perception by A does not guarantee a perception by B who is more distant from the original event. Prediction is based on prior knowledge and has a probability value. B might be sleeping when the image arrives, the weather could interfere, or B could die before the image arrives.

I have a can of tomato sauce, intended for a pasta recipe. Nobody will see the sauce pour from the can before I do, and not until I open it. The event underlined does not exist yet.

B. Greene also likes metaphors like 'moving in time'.

If the future is fixed or predetermined, then law enforcement becomes ineffective. The criminal defense is ' it was meant to be'.]



#951 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 07 September 2019 - 12:35 PM

I wasn’t especially interested in defending the block universe, only in clarifying what Greene was talking about, and especially in noting that NOTHING in Greene’s ontology, or in that of Einstein or Minkowski, envisions a frame in which an effect will precede a cause, which is what Ralf was arguing in his example of the sun going out. It was yet another of his strawmen against relativity theory.

 

That said, I do think it is a bit harsh to say that the block universe is “nonsense.” Plenty of scientists and philosophers adhere to it, for good reasons, like Greene, apparently Minkowski, and, nowadays, the physicist Valentin Petkov.

 

If the block world is true, I personally disagree that it implies fatalism or lack of free will, but that is a separate, philosophical discussion, and a rather complicated one at that.

 

 



#952 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1024 posts

Posted 07 September 2019 - 12:36 PM

Yes perspectives don't exist until the events actually happen. To say they do IS a violation of causality never mind that you can't do anything with the information to actually violate causality physically. A mirage is an illusion, not reality, and that illusion fades when you try to get close. So how can you agree with Einstein who said past present and future are persistent illusions, that his dead friend is still alive in the past and Greene's videos about a far off alien being able to see my future before I do. Einstein got himself into this mess by saying the illusion of perspective is actually reality. He couldn't figure out that causal time is reality and perspective time is an illusion. 

 

Please just grow some balls and make a definitive statement that this is all lunacy and it is in the core doctrines of Einstein's relativity. I'm sick of all mamby pamby relativists never calling out Einstein's blunders by either denying he said them or calling them "essentially correct" and let's just leave it at that. I mean let's just have it out because you and dumbamp and XC constantly just slither away when proven wrong without admitting it. Wilful ignorance on all your parts.


Edited by ralfcis, 07 September 2019 - 12:49 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: relativity