Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
That is clear. The first column originates the second one and the second column originates the third one.
The Theory of Inexorability
- Thread starter Asexperia
- Start date
That is clear. The first column originates the second one and the second column originates the third one.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Einstein was trying to come to grips with the null result of the Michelson-Morely experiment, not just to philosophize and categorize physical parameters the way philosophy does. His formulation of Special Relativity forced a rethink of what scientists thought they understood about the medium in which light propagates, and removed Newton's conceptions of absolute space and absolute time and the luminiferous aether in which those things made sense. It also forced a rethink of what is meant by the concept of simultaneity in a universe of events, something that is not mentioned at all in your Philochrony, and which is the foundation for understanding why length contraction and time dilation occur when viewing events in one frame of reference with respect to another, resolution of the twin paradox, and eventually explaining many other REAL phenomena that Philochrony appears to make no attempt to explain. Does Philochrony predict E=mc^2? Doesn't look like it's going in that direction.
Categorizations like "Property…Quantity…Magnitude" are arbitrary, whether you view them that way or not. You are making the same mistake philosophy always makes, which is mainly, not really conveying a deeper understanding of the terms it simply bandies and equivocates about.
But to be fair, 2009-2015 isn't really much time. Why don't you keep working on the idea, and if you have a breakthrough of some kind with Philochrony, by all means, please return and tell us all about it. The ground rules are, it must predict something that Relativity does not: a new particle never previously seen or understood, or a simplification of a concept that was much too complicated, but not along the lines of rendering the Earth a pancake with one time zone. And don't come back with idea to resurrect the older ideas about absolute space or time, the luminiferous aether wind, or something else that is obviously absurd on the face of it.
An inability to grasp the theory of Relativity is not a valid motivation for producing something like Philochrony. Philosophy is no replacement for real science.
Categorizations like "Property…Quantity…Magnitude" are arbitrary, whether you view them that way or not. You are making the same mistake philosophy always makes, which is mainly, not really conveying a deeper understanding of the terms it simply bandies and equivocates about.
But to be fair, 2009-2015 isn't really much time. Why don't you keep working on the idea, and if you have a breakthrough of some kind with Philochrony, by all means, please return and tell us all about it. The ground rules are, it must predict something that Relativity does not: a new particle never previously seen or understood, or a simplification of a concept that was much too complicated, but not along the lines of rendering the Earth a pancake with one time zone. And don't come back with idea to resurrect the older ideas about absolute space or time, the luminiferous aether wind, or something else that is obviously absurd on the face of it.
An inability to grasp the theory of Relativity is not a valid motivation for producing something like Philochrony. Philosophy is no replacement for real science.
Last edited:
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
I am not the first one nor I will be the last one to criticize General Relativity. The Philochrony* is not in conflict with Special Relativity. The nature of gravity has not been explained yet. There are only hypotheses.
* In Spanish: Filocronia, la dualidad devenir-tiempo, Teoria de la inexorabilidad.
* In Spanish: Filocronia, la dualidad devenir-tiempo, Teoria de la inexorabilidad.
Fixed it for you.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
THIS IS GENERAL RELATIVITY, WHAT DID I MISS?
SPACE-TIME DIAGRAMS
The sequence 1-2-1 is inexorable regardless of the reference frame.
The lines O1 (blue) and O2 (green) correspond to the trajectory of the observers. The brown triangle represents the light cone and the small circles represent the signals from the detectors (events) when the light arrive to them.
For the O1 one of the detectors of O2 turns on first, later the both his turn on simultaneously and finally the other one of O2 turns on.
For the O2 one of the detectors of O1 turns on first, later the both his turn on simultaneously and finally the other one of O1 turns on.
In the graph 2 we see the drawing that makes the O2 where his timeline would be vertical and the line of O1 would be inclined.
In conclusion, both observers watch the same sequence 1-2-1 of events. This sequence is inexorable.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
It is possible (particularly if Observers 1, 2 are moving in the same direction, WHICH CANNOT BE DETERMINED from your diagram!), that the order of events, in some cases, will 'INEXORABLY' be the same, whatever that means. I have used "inexorable" correctly here. But you have not, because:
Relativity says, if a pair of events A and B appear simultaneous in the "rest" frame (at rest with respect to both events), then for an observer traveling at relativistic speed along a line connecting the events A and B in the direction A > B, event B occurs FIRST. For an observer traveling at relativistic speed along a line connecting events B and A in the direction B > A, event A occurs FIRST. And this is true no matter what distance (even as small as an Angstrom) separates events A and B OR THEIR RESPECTIVE LIGHT CONES in space.
If your theory of inexorability predicts otherwise, then it is inexorably wrong. What, for the sake of philosophical argument, did you think it meant? What is it, exactly, that is supposed to be "inexorable" here?
Or did you mean "inEXORable" in the sense of an EXclusive OR (anti-coincidence) gate? It does relate in that way to simultaneity. GAWD, I do hate philosophy's word games. I don't think the word means much of anything in your case. Perhaps we should redefine it as meaning "doesn't really understand relativity"?
Relativity says, if a pair of events A and B appear simultaneous in the "rest" frame (at rest with respect to both events), then for an observer traveling at relativistic speed along a line connecting the events A and B in the direction A > B, event B occurs FIRST. For an observer traveling at relativistic speed along a line connecting events B and A in the direction B > A, event A occurs FIRST. And this is true no matter what distance (even as small as an Angstrom) separates events A and B OR THEIR RESPECTIVE LIGHT CONES in space.
If your theory of inexorability predicts otherwise, then it is inexorably wrong. What, for the sake of philosophical argument, did you think it meant? What is it, exactly, that is supposed to be "inexorable" here?
Or did you mean "inEXORable" in the sense of an EXclusive OR (anti-coincidence) gate? It does relate in that way to simultaneity. GAWD, I do hate philosophy's word games. I don't think the word means much of anything in your case. Perhaps we should redefine it as meaning "doesn't really understand relativity"?
Last edited:
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
Inexorable: not able to be changed, inevitable.
For the O1 one of the detectors of O2 turns on first (1), later the both his turn on simultaneously (2) and finally the other one of O2 turns on (1).
For the O2 one of the detectors of O1 turns on first (1), later the both his turn on simultaneously (2) and finally the other one of O1 turns on (1).
It is possible to change the reference frame, but not the succession 1-2-1 (inexorable). You have to be objective.
Watch the video carefully.
For the O1 one of the detectors of O2 turns on first (1), later the both his turn on simultaneously (2) and finally the other one of O2 turns on (1).
For the O2 one of the detectors of O1 turns on first (1), later the both his turn on simultaneously (2) and finally the other one of O1 turns on (1).
It is possible to change the reference frame, but not the succession 1-2-1 (inexorable). You have to be objective.
Watch the video carefully.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
The physics007animations video is very good, but I see nothing in it that is "inexorable" or "inevitable", including the order of events. The placement of events in your light cones indicate they are "light like", which is fine, but unless the observers and events are one in the same, light cones for separate observers and events need to be separate; not part of the same light cone. Light cones may intersect in a variety of ways based on relative states of motion, but this is one thing about this video and your graphs that seems to be out of sync. It is small wonder you got the impression that the order of events was unchanged somehow. You just need to consider more cases.
I try not to get drawn into protracted discussions of Minkowski's light cones if I can avoid them. I understand from discussions here that they do have some interesting applications.
You have made me rethink my relativity simultaneity setup. Once the moving observer passes both events, any future simultaneous events would likewise appear to be non-simultaneous, but in reverse order from the way they appeared to occur when the observer was approaching along the line that connects the simultaneous events. It has to be that way, because of the "inexorable" light travel time between those events. Does this help at all? How would you show that situation with your graphs?
I try not to get drawn into protracted discussions of Minkowski's light cones if I can avoid them. I understand from discussions here that they do have some interesting applications.
You have made me rethink my relativity simultaneity setup. Once the moving observer passes both events, any future simultaneous events would likewise appear to be non-simultaneous, but in reverse order from the way they appeared to occur when the observer was approaching along the line that connects the simultaneous events. It has to be that way, because of the "inexorable" light travel time between those events. Does this help at all? How would you show that situation with your graphs?
Last edited:
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
Posted by Danshawen: "The physics007animations video is very good, but I see nothing in it that is "inexorable" or "inevitable", including the order of events."
I respect your opinion not to visualize the inexorable sequence 1-2-1. Perhaps other forum members agree with you or me.
By the way, the Theory of Relativity, special and general, should be called Theory of "c". Everyone knows why. And besides, the principle of relativity is old.
I respect your opinion not to visualize the inexorable sequence 1-2-1. Perhaps other forum members agree with you or me.
By the way, the Theory of Relativity, special and general, should be called Theory of "c". Everyone knows why. And besides, the principle of relativity is old.
Last edited by a moderator:
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
The order of events does not appear to depend ONLY on relative states of motion, but also on whether those relative states of motion have positions that are approaching or have already passed the events in the reference frame that is being observed. Like your principle of inexorability, this observation is very much at odds with the way relativity is taught.
That's peculiar, as Feynman would no doubt have said.
Actually, this same scenario has already played out here in the thread on Minkowski, and no one seemed to pick up on that peculiarity.
Your arguments have a flavor like those of our dear friend Farsight, and I mean that as a compliment.
Last edited:
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
OK, so now I have a question. See if you can give us a good answer with your theory of inexorability.
Two galaxies are far enough from the Milky Way so that both appear to be receding (leaving) at relativistic speed and with the associated red (Doppler) shifts. The galaxies are separated from each other by about 1/2 billion light years, and both are separated from the Milky Way by over 3 billion light years. At some time t in a frame that is for all intents and purposes at rest with respect to these two distant galaxies, two supernova events occur within fraction of a second of each other, one in each galaxy.
How do these events play out as observed from the Milky Way? Does the most distant supernova appear to go off first, or is it the closer one?
Now that you've figured that one out, describe the events in order with the barn doors and the ends of the pole of Wheeler's old 'pole and barn' paradox, for two cases:
1) The pole runner is approaching you (the 'at rest' observer with respect to the barn) at some speed < c, and
2) The pole runner is running away from you (the 'at rest' observer with respect to the barn) at some speed < - c
Does it really make any difference to the order of events in which direction he runs?
If this causes you confusion, you may replace the pole with a similar length pulse of light, and remove the runner (because he can't possibly travel at c along with the pulse). In these cases, only the barn may appear to contract with respect to the light pulse, if that helps.
Two galaxies are far enough from the Milky Way so that both appear to be receding (leaving) at relativistic speed and with the associated red (Doppler) shifts. The galaxies are separated from each other by about 1/2 billion light years, and both are separated from the Milky Way by over 3 billion light years. At some time t in a frame that is for all intents and purposes at rest with respect to these two distant galaxies, two supernova events occur within fraction of a second of each other, one in each galaxy.
How do these events play out as observed from the Milky Way? Does the most distant supernova appear to go off first, or is it the closer one?
Now that you've figured that one out, describe the events in order with the barn doors and the ends of the pole of Wheeler's old 'pole and barn' paradox, for two cases:
1) The pole runner is approaching you (the 'at rest' observer with respect to the barn) at some speed < c, and
2) The pole runner is running away from you (the 'at rest' observer with respect to the barn) at some speed < - c
Does it really make any difference to the order of events in which direction he runs?
If this causes you confusion, you may replace the pole with a similar length pulse of light, and remove the runner (because he can't possibly travel at c along with the pulse). In these cases, only the barn may appear to contract with respect to the light pulse, if that helps.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
ENTROPY AND PHILOCHRONY
ENTROPY
----------------------------------->
hot ........ HEAT .......... cold body
body
The decrease of the entropy tends to thermal equilibrium. During the entropy work is generated. This is the second law of Thermodynamics.
PHILOCHRONY
.................. fluidity
----------------->> ----------------
past .......... present ......... future
One of the arrows represents the sense of time and the other one represents the fluidity or becoming.
Entropy is a phenomenon of Thermodynamics and philochrony is verified in all reality. In the entropy the bodies, hot and cold, are in contact; in the philochrony the present gets away from the past more and more.
In the philochrony:
1) beings and phenomena arise, last and disappear,
2) everything has a beginning and an end,
3) It is produced the aging and the material deterioration.
Buenas noches.
Sibilia
ENTROPY
----------------------------------->
hot ........ HEAT .......... cold body
body
The decrease of the entropy tends to thermal equilibrium. During the entropy work is generated. This is the second law of Thermodynamics.
PHILOCHRONY
.................. fluidity
----------------->> ----------------
past .......... present ......... future
One of the arrows represents the sense of time and the other one represents the fluidity or becoming.
Entropy is a phenomenon of Thermodynamics and philochrony is verified in all reality. In the entropy the bodies, hot and cold, are in contact; in the philochrony the present gets away from the past more and more.
In the philochrony:
1) beings and phenomena arise, last and disappear,
2) everything has a beginning and an end,
3) It is produced the aging and the material deterioration.
Buenas noches.
Sibilia
Last edited by a moderator: