In Re: Rev. Roger's Sermon #31

[nurbldoff]

Oh yeah, and the "twin paradox" does exist, it's just not very paradoxical You just need to take into account that the situation is not entirely symmetrical. Even though it's impossible to distinguish which one of A and B is travelling "away" from the other, at least one of them will have to undergo acceleration in order for them to separate and meet up again. They can't both stay in the same inertial system the whole time and therefore they don't experience the same "time".

The "paradoxes" of special relativity are really only paradoxes in the sense that  intuition will come up with an answer that is different from what SR predicts. So in that sense, there is no paradox.

[the other anonymous]

Even though it's impossible to distinguish which one of A and B is travelling "away" from the other

In order to travel away from each other, there must be something through which to move.

The paradox, as usually stated, implies that they both exist in Nothing, i.e., B is moving through Nothing.

Now, as far as I can tell, Nothing has no dimension. One cannot say "5 meters of Nothing" or "23 pints of Nothing".

So, the paradox in its usual form suggests that the Nothing between A and B increases in distance, which it does not have.

Therefor, the paradox as usually stated is an example of ignoring reality in the face of over-whelming math.

That is what I was trying to say. Everything else you've said is probably right, since, to accelerate, B must be moving through Something which has distance.

And, as we all might know, every Something has a gravitational force and is thus an inertial frame. Moving though it would of course have an affect.

As for intuition being the cause of paradoxes: most often, it's due to a lack of understanding how the math applies to Reality (e.g., assuming Nothing between A and B). For this reason, I assume anything with "quantum" in the name is complete bullshit.

[nurbldoff]

I don't think I get what you're saying... what is this "something" that you'd have to move through? I certainly agree that "space" or rather, "space-time" may be viewed as a concept by which we try to understand our surroundings, but so is "moving" in that case, since it's immediately tied to the concept of space-time. What (special) relativity says is that there is no "absolute" movement, in that you cannot say whether A is moving towards B or vice versa without making an arbitrary assumption. But you cannot have "something" without space, right? "Something" is distributed somehow in space, and thus it has dimensions. Movement is tied to space-time, and space-time is shaped by mass. But space-time is also, in principle, independent of mass.

And, as we all might know, every Something has a gravitational force and is thus an inertial frame. Moving though it would of course have an affect.

This just makes no sense to me, you'll have to elaborate How does an object "have" an inertial frame? Also, an intertial frame is only locally possible (as an approximation) in a non-uniform gravitational field.

I assume anything with "quantum" in the name is complete bullshit. Wink

Okay, but still, remember that without quantum mechanics, a very large chunk of our modern technology wouldn't even be possible. It's an *extremely* well tested theory on which almost all physics, chemistry and much of biology rests nowadays. Sure, nobody understands it, but they can still churn out the numbers

[Chef]

THE AUTHOR OF THIS FREAD IS A

YUO = NOT IMPRESSING ANYONE, OPIE.

CHEF D,
IS LAUGHING AT YUO, OPIE.

[Kallisti]

Don't worry toa, this is just Roger being an asshole under another name, he'll get bored with it in another day or two.  You're a good kid and make wonderful contributions here.

[Chef]

Don't worry toa, this is just Roger being an asshole under another name, he'll get bored with it in another day or two.  You're a good kid and make wonderful contributions here.

NO, THIS IS JUST ROGER TAKING THA BACK SEAT, ELDORA.

[Kallisti]

Don't worry toa, this is just Roger being an asshole under another name, he'll get bored with it in another day or two.  You're a good kid and make wonderful contributions here.

NO, THIS IS JUST ROGER TAKING THA BACK SEAT, ELDORA.

You're just proving you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

[the other anonymous]

I don't think I get what you're saying... what is this "something" that you'd have to move through?

You can't move through Nothing, so you must be moving through Something. Something == !Nothing. (Something==Anything)

What (special) relativity says is that there is no "absolute" movement, in that you cannot say whether A is moving towards B or vice versa without making an arbitrary assumption.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM! The assumption is not arbitrary!

Since we must be moving through Something, it is not arbitrary.

I agree: when comparing A and B while ignore Something (C), we end up with an apparant paradox. But if we consider A as it relates to C (standing still) and B as it relates to C (moving), the asymmetry is normal and expected. In other words, we have to know how A relates to B (which is: via C). We can't directly compare A and B because they are not within the same frame (their gravitational fields are not overlapping and thus there is no relationship to analyze). We can only compare A with B via C:

gravcmp(A,B) == undefined
gravcmp(gravcmp(A,C), gravcmp(B,C)) == defined

And, as we all might know, every Something has a gravitational force and is thus an inertial frame. Moving though it would of course have an affect.

This just makes no sense to me, you'll have to elaborate How does an object "have" an inertial frame? Also, an intertial frame is only locally possible (as an approximation) in a non-uniform gravitational field.

I agree. I have no idea what I'm talking about. In my muddled brain, I assume the only thing which exists is Gravity and that all things either have gravity or are gravity. Further, my brain tells me that the most sensical manner of defining an inertial frame is in terms of gravitational fields. Therefore, everything is an inertial frame because everything has/is gravity. (Inertia being a result of gravitational forces.)

Am I correct about any of that?

I assume anything with "quantum" in the name is complete bullshit. Wink

Okay, but still, remember that without quantum mechanics, a very large chunk of our modern technology wouldn't even be possible. It's an *extremely* well tested theory on which almost all physics, chemistry and much of biology rests nowadays. Sure, nobody understands it, but they can still churn out the numbers

What I don't like about it is that it's too complex. I know alot has been proven correct; the problem is: the mathematical systems and equations and all of that crap are just way too complex. The final result should be simple and elegant and they're no where near that yet. The complexity and lack of completion suggests that there's alot of bull to sort through, so I just wave it all off as a way of encouraging them science guys to make things simpler. (It'll benefit them as well!)

[the other anonymous]

Don't worry toa, this is just Roger being an asshole under another name, he'll get bored with it in another day or two.  You're a good kid and make wonderful contributions here.

NO, THIS IS JUST ROGER TAKING THA BACK SEAT, ELDORA.

Is that really you, Roger? You gonna cook me some dinner, lover? (You're the one who said I was a smoooooth fag )

Btw, I didn't know you liked it in the back seat. I'll remember that for our honeymoon.

[nurbldoff]

Ah, I think the problem is that we have different definitions of "something"

Before Einstein came along, the most popular explanation for lots of phenomena was "the aether", being "something" that was everywhere in space and through which everything moved. There were very intricate theories devised involving the aether's "drag" on objects and so on, but ultimately I think they all turned out to be unsatisfactory, especially compared to the simple elegance of relativity.

Relativity supposes that what we move through is simply "space-time", it really says nothing about what that "is", only what it does, treating it as a mathematical construct. This is common to all physical theories, btw. Space-time, according to relativity, is not absolute; there are no universal scales or clocks, only local ones tied to each observer. Space-time is just there, all coordinate systems etc are our own impositions.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM! The assumption is not arbitrary!

Since we must be moving through Something, it is not arbitrary.

Well, accorting to relativity, A might just as well move through B's "something" as vice versa, or both A and B move through C's "something"... they're really only points of view and all equally valid BUT none of them is universal. Whether you're A, B och C, you'll percieve a different universe! There is no one "something", there are an infinite number of possible "somethings", which kind of suggests that this "something" is really only a matter of perspective.

I personally find this very neat, since it's also a common discordian assumption It's also in accordance with experimental obersvations...  I'm not saying that makes it TRUE, but I do think it's the best explanation I've seen so far.

I don't know what you mean by "their gravitational fields are not overlapping and thus there is no relationship to analyze"... gravitational fields (according to GR they're treated as warpings of space-time) extend infinitely far. If you're saying that all interactions are gravitational, I think you're on thin ice. What about electromagnetic interaction? Sure, a truly general theory would have to unify the forces, but we're not there yet by a longshot and it wouldn't be gravity as we know it anyhoo...

Therefore, everything is an inertial frame because everything has/is gravity. (Inertia being a result of gravitational forces.)

Inertia is a property of mass, not of gravity. If your body hits a surface at 100 km/h after a fall on earth or weightless in space, it'll still hurt as much.

If we're going to even use the term "inertial system", I think we'd better stick to the relativistic definition, which is "a coordinate system in rectilinear motion", i.e. a system that is in free fall; not under any acceleration. And it's not generally compatible with gravity.

What I don't like about it is that it's too complex.

Hehe, well that goes for a lot of people But it's really not that hard to grasp once you've got the framework in math; I personally find general relativity a lot harder to "get". Quantum mechanics actually makes a lot of systems pretty simple. I also think it's a bit strange that many people are so unwilling to allow science to be "hard"... nobody complains about medicine requiring lots of education :P

I actually think there's some danger in just expecting theories to be "simple"; what if nature just isn't so simple? I don't think the Final theory (if there will ever be one) will be significantly easier for the layman than QM or GR; quite the opposite. But I'm pretty sure that it will be very beautiful if you sit down and really learn it.

I personally loved QM when I first got into contact with it. Not because I found it easy; I still don't, but because I think it's hilarious that something so weird can be so close to reality It's also very elegant. And it's an endless source of philosophical enigmas!

[DJRubberducky]

I actually think there's some danger in just expecting theories to be "simple"; what if nature just isn't so simple?

Then you'll hear a lovely tinkling sound as millions upon millions of hopes are shattered - namely, those hopes that belonging to a particular religion will put you in the VIP crowd when you die, and you'll finally get to hear the answers to all the different questions you ever had about existence, and you'll be able to understand them, because you're part of the VIP crowd and that makes you special.

[Chef]

Don't worry toa, this is just Roger being an asshole under another name, he'll get bored with it in another day or two.  You're a good kid and make wonderful contributions here.

NO, THIS IS JUST ROGER TAKING THA BACK SEAT, ELDORA.

You're just proving you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

[Kallisti]

I'm not crying, Rog, but here's a kleenex, you must be all teary eyed because you keeping posting that

[Chef]

I'm not crying, Rog, but here's a kleenex, you must be all teary eyed because you keeping posting that

YUO = HAVING TROUBLE READING TODAY?

CHEF D,
THINKS YUO SHOULD LEARN TO DISCERN CONTEXT BEFORE GETTING ON HIS INTERNETS.

[Kallisti]

I thought it was Al Gore's internet. Or possibly Bill Gates.  But definitely not Chef