Personal Topic

[Moronium]

 

 

In that case it would be fair to say that a "certain amount of time" is the same for each clock.

 

 

 

The question has nothing to do with it being "the same for each clock."  Nothing.  The only question is can a thing be what it is? Is it possible for anything to have any kind of identity?

 

Suppose 10 people have a different opinion of you.  Does that mean you can't be who you are?  Are you now without any kind of fixed identity?

 

They say there are only three fundamental laws of logic, the first being the law of identity, often formulated as "A = A," with A being anything you want to insert.  If you deny the law of identity, which you can if you want, then all logic is impossible.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

There is still a god's eye view of time. In every frame, whether you're accelerating, moving at constant velocity or in a gravitational field, your and everyone's clocks are all ticking at the same rate which is also the normal rate of time and the velocity of c through time. Everyone in the universe sees himself age at the normal rate. But relative to you, the velocity of c through time fuels the velocity c through space which means if you see something moving, it's velocity through time is less than c and approaches 0 as the velocity c through space approaches c. So their clock rate slows relative to you but not to them because they are stationary in their own frame. You can see this in the doppler shift televised picture show of what's going on inside their frame. They see themselves move at the normal rate through time but you see each other move at a non-normal rate through time. My theory looks from the perspective of this universal normal rate of time that is common to all frames and how this works to explain the relativistic effects between frames. This is my definition of the god's eye view which is different from both Newton's and Einstein's definitions. Einstein didn't disprove a god's eye view of time, he just didn't know about this particular definition and chose an option that was contrary to any that involved both a common universal time (Newton) and a universal rate of time (which is proper time). There are no contradictions in my theory and it can predict results that relativity can't.

 

PS. I have a conservation of time law where time doesn't disappear, it gets converted and stored as space that can't be counted by clocks. If constant relative velocity causes time dilation and stores some of that time as distance separation, then a break in that constant relative velocity forces that time stored as distance to be converted into age difference thereby conserving time on both sides of the equation much like energy can be conserved when converted into matter and vice versa.

Edited February 6, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

They say there are only three fundamental laws of logic, the first being the law of identity, often formulated as "A = A," with A being anything you want to insert.  If you deny the law of identity, which you can if you want, then all logic is impossible.

 

You could have thousands, or millions, or billions, or trillions, or trillions of trillions of clocks all running at different rates.  Are all of them "correct?"  If you say yes, then nothing can be correct because EVERYTHING is correct.

 

If you say that the question is meaningless, because you don't know the correct answer, then all of science is meaningless. Epistemology is not ontology.

 

The only way you can proceed without forever abandoning all logic is to say, no, they can't all be correct, even if I don't know which one, if any, is correct.

[OceanBreeze]

You could have thousands, or millions, or billions, or trillions, or trillions of trillions of clocks all running at different rates.  Are all of them "correct?"  If you say yes, then nothing can be correct because EVERYTHING is correct.

 

If you say that the question is meaningless, because you don't know the correct answer, then all of science is meaningless. Epistemology is not ontology.

 

The only way you can proceed without forever abandoning all logic is to say, no, they can't all be correct, even if I don't know which one, if any, is correct.

 

 

Of course they are not all correct!

 

How you got that idea from my post is beyond me.

 

Maybe you need to read it again.

[Moronium]

Everyone in the universe sees himself age at the normal rate. 

 

 

Not everyone.  And certainly not invariably or necessarily.  Why should they?

 

I don't. Why sould anyone?  If I'm on a train that has just finished accelerating to 70 mph, or was on a spaceship headed to the moon, I would never say that, as between me and the earth, the earth was moving not me.

 

Assuming the validity of the LT, I would therefore conclude that I was not "aging at the normal rate," or more to the point, that my clock was the one that has slowed down, not earth clocks.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

The question has nothing to do with it being "the same for each clock."  Nothing.  The only question is can a thing be what it is? Is it possible for anything to have any kind of identity?

 

Suppose 10 people have a different opinion of you.  Does that mean you can't be who you are?  Are you now without any kind of fixed identity?

 

They say there are only three fundamental laws of logic, the first being the law of identity, often formulated as "A = A," with A being anything you want to insert.  If you deny the law of identity, which you can if you want, then all logic is impossible.

 

 

Time cannot be a thing unto itself because it does not exist without events, that is, it does not exist unless there is something changing.

[OceanBreeze]

I just realized I don't have "time" for this thread.

[Moronium]

 

The guy didn't say "go" at five different times, and he didn't say "stop" at five different times, so "different" durations can't be the explanation for 5 different clock readings, right?  The duration between time 1 and time 2 is the same for each watch, even if all of them are wrong about the "correct" amount of time elapsed.

 

Can you see why the question is one of identity, and not "clocks," Popeye?  And why clock ticking rate is irrelevant?

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Of course they are not all correct!

 

 

Don't try telling SR that, eh?

[ralfcis]

Moronium I have no idea what you're saying because you refuse to stick to any kind of consistent terminology from one sentence to the next. Start your own thread. Discuss your own ideas there. I don't want to discuss your ideas here. You have no desire to follow my arguments and I definitely don't have any desire to follow yours.

[Moronium]

Time cannot be a thing unto itself because it does not exist without events, that is, it does not exist unless there is something changing.

 

Of course time does not "exist" in any tangible sense.  It can't; it's merely an abstract concept, not a "thing."  But of course that's all the more reason to be suspicious of any claim that "time" has any effect on clocks, or any other kind of matter in motion, as Minkowski does.

 

We cannot "measure" time without change, I agree.  But my ability to measure something does not determine whether or not it exists.  That's true in the realm of material objects, but it's especially true in the conceptual realm.  "Ideas" can exist without having any strict correspondence in the physical world (see SR, if you doubt that).

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Moronium I have no idea what you're saying because you refuse to stick to any kind of consistent terminology from one sentence to the next. 

 

 

I agree that you have no idea what I'm saying, but I don't agree with your assignment of the cause of that.

[ralfcis]

So if a car ran you over, you would conclude a car exists. But when time runs into you and leaves you in even worse shape than a car would, you conclude time doesn't exist? Of course you won't answer this question, even though it's philosophical, because you haven't answered most if any so far. You just want to hear yourself talk.

[Moronium]

 But when time runs into you and leaves you in even worse shape than a car would, you conclude time doesn't exist? 

 

Show me any experiment, or even any everyday instance, where "time" (who must be the Greek God, Kronos, who ate his own children, I assume) has "run into" anything, eh?  Then maybe we can talk about it.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Take a look in the mirror.

[Moronium]

Let me try this one more time, Popeye.

 

Let's say you have two clocks which run at different rates.  One has stopped.  After a "certain amount of time" has elapsed my (wound up) watch says one hour has passed.  The other watch naturally says that no time has passed.

 

Are there now two different times involved, one for each watch?  Does a stopped watch cause "time" to stop?

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Posted 28 January 2019 - 09:07 PM

Moronium, on 27 Jan 2019 - 4:32 PM, said:

I offer this as a historical but relevant sidenote:

 

I mentioned Percy Bridgeman a post or two back.  For those who are unfamiliar with him he wrote a book on the subject of the philosophy of science in 1927 called  "The Logic of Modern Physics"  which advocated operationalism and coined the term operational definition.

 

By the time this book was published, Einstein had already denounced the "positivistic" philosophy of science which Bridgeman's book promoted.  In an interview he said it fallaciously embodied Berkeley's solipsistic dictum that "to be is to be perceived."

 

As usual, Einstein was way ahead of his peers.  Percy's book, and similar thought, held sway as the dominant and commonly accepted philosophy of science until well after 1950.  It has since been thoroughly refuted and universally abandoned, but many of its remants still subsist in modern "scientific" thought.

 

To elaborate (and substantiate)  on this post, here's an excerpt from Franco Selleri's book "Weak Relativity."

 

The impact of Mach’s positivism was transmitted by the young Einstein. But around 1920 Einstein turned away from positivism because he realized with a shock some of its consequences; consequences which the next generations of brilliant physicists (Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg) not only discovered but enthusiastically embraced: they became subjectivists. But Einstein’s withdrawal came too late. “Physics had become a stronghold of subjectivist philosophy, and it has remained so ever since.” [Popper]. Popper witnessed Einstein’s radical change of opinion about Mach’s philosophy: “Einstein himself was for years a dogmatic positivist ... He later rejected this interpretation: he told me in 1950 that he regretted no mistake he ever made as much as this mistake.”

 

 

http://blog.hasslber..._Relativity.pdf

 

I realize that, aside from me, it is unlikely that anybody in this thread cares about this kinda stuff, but that's OK.  I'll post it anyway.  It's too bad that more people don't appreciate the role that philosophy plays in the formulation of scientific theory.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-13

 

This is just a re-post of a prior post (post #219 on page 13 of this thread), which itself referred to other relevant posts.  I post it again here because it is quite relevant to the discussion I'm having with Popeye.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium