It is commonly asserted by those who espouse materialist philosophy (as opposed to idealism in the broad sense - e.g. in the Marxist definition) that "everything is reducible in the last analysis to matter." This notion, very popular, is deceitful & disempowering since it denies the existence of difference between things - as highlighted in the works of Jacques Derrida and notably in 'Derrida for Beginners' (Jeff Collins & Bill Mayblin) where with the denial of difference everything is rationalized in a perverse and logocentric way (see pp. 45-46 especially). While Derrida spent his life trying to avoid the trap, he did not see the plain way out which is:- Matter is NOT the only fundamental ontological entity. There is also space and time; space and time permit the existence and interaction of different portions of matter. The relation between the three is: Matter is in space which in turn is in time. That is, the relation between the three ontological entities is indirect, is prepositional. What will become clear is that this position absolutely contradicts modern populism as expressed by Einstein's relativity theory & its 'explication' by Hermann Minkowski i.e. the melding of space & time into spacetime by general relativity (GR) and Minkowski's further melding of matter with it i.e. space-time-matter (see especially Minkowski pp. 73-91 in The Principle of Relativity by Einstein, Lorentz, Minkowski & Weyl (Dover, NY, 1952)). Hence all popular materialist philosophies today are monistic, reducing everything to one principle, engendering resulting confusion and demoralization because the differences cannot be worked out objectively. Non-monistic materialism avoids this trap but in order to do so targets Einstein's relativity theories beginning with special relativity (SR) as the cause of philosophical confusion in the last 100+ years. We see the results of this Einsteinian philosophy most prominently in physics with the failure to solve the global energy crisis by developing nuclear fusion. FOLZONI
That sounds just plain stupid. If the fact of relativity confuses pilosophers then they should quit being philosophers and get a job at 7-11 or a shoe store.
So I see origin, ... ...that you apparently claim that Einstein and relativity are superior to all philosophy - and thus to all science too. Strange that - since it is Einstein's relativity that leads to all these unresolvable logical paradoxes - polluting other branches of physics as it does so e.g. Hugh Everett's Many World Interpretation of Quantum Theory is actually based upon SR's mutually moving observers paradox (i.e. clock paradox, twin paradox etc.) so is not actually an implication of quantum theory per se. Origin here demonstrates scientism - the hubris that science can determine everything rationally, so that philosophy is downgraded to e.g. mere word quibbling or commentaries on the nature of art or footnotes to Plato. Origin's position is sure a common one for modern (modernist) scientists - but the proof of the pudding is still in the eating, so let me demonstrate the failure of modern physics through the anti-Einsteinian astronomer Herbert Dingle, whose final opponent was the modern physicist, Einstein defender and editor of Nature John Maddox. In "The Doomsday Syndrome" (Macmillan 1972) pp. 84-85 Maddox laughed at pessimistic notions of a coming energy crisis in the following way: No doubt Einsteinians feel safe & smug in 2014 - despite the utter failure of Maddox's predictions - since they merely cling to Einstein's sterile equations. FOLZONI
Do materialists actually exist? What we typically encounter are physicalists. (I tend towards physicalism myself.) This is the idea that everything is ultimately physical, that everything exists within the world described by physics, so to speak. That needn't mean that everything that exists is matter. It can include energy, space, time, mass, size, shape, motion, hardness, electrical and other more exotic charges, gravity and fields of different sorts. It also seem to implicitly accept things like numbers, sets, logic, mathematical relationships and so on. When we start to try to generate a complete inventory of the physical, we find that it's actually a rather fuzzy and poorly-bounded concept. So what physicalism is typically asserting is the monistic idea that whatever it is that physics is addressing, is reality. It's basically denying the idea that other kinds of realities ('spiritual' or otherwise) exist alongside the physical.
Relativity is NOT philosophy. It is not superior to science it is a part of science. Relativity DOES NOT lead to paradoxes - it resolves them so they are not pardoxical. I ddin't say that nor do I believe that, you know a strawman. Those sterile equations have proved to be incredibly robust and consistent at reflecting reality. It makes no difference if Herbert Dingle does not like relativity. Reality doesn't give a hoot.:shrug:
Greetings Yazata. I often wonder about your first question myself. The heart of your quote is the emphasized section on 'monistic' where you qualify that word by 'reality', meaning in this case 'physical reality'. But what does physical reality consist of? Does it only consist of matter? If we say that physical reality consists of matter-in-motion then I would agree, but we have to understand what the parameters of motion are. Looking in my old 1970s of Halliday & Resnick's textbook on physics, I find that dimensions for various concepts are based on the difference, on the separation of matter, space and time into three individual ontological categories. For example, angular momentum, measured in units of mass x meters-squared divided by time. There is ALWAYS separation between matter, space and time. Only in Einstein's relativity, beginning with SR, is this procedure violated. In this way, as Minkowski (and origin) demonstrate, the difference between matter, space and time is violated so that everything is reduced monistically to 'stuff', one 'common stuff' that Spinoza termed 'substance' and which in Einstein's conception embraces space & time too. The end result, time dilation & length contraction (TD&LC) creates the familiar logical paradoxes of Einstein's relativity (clock paradox, twin paradox etc.). Hence there is a decisive opposition between Einstein's relativity & the rest of physics in terms of "what constitutes reality." So as you can see, Yazata, I am using the word 'monistic' differently & more restrictedly than you - as I am referring to those who assert that everything is reducible to matter alone rather than the broader "matter-in-motion." FOLZONI
So why does origin, great 'howdy' realist that he is, even bother... ...about hooting a few negative comments?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! FOLZONI
I pointing out your misconceptions about 'paradoxes' in relativity. I also pointed out that contrary to what you have said relativity is a well tested and robust theory. Why did you simply ignored those points and just accuse me of making negative comments? If someone disagrees with you does that is automatically mean the comments are negative?
The fundamental issue in the post here, origin, is that matter, space & time are ontologically separate so cannot be muddled together as Einstein & Minkowski do in concocting Relativity Theory. The result of Einstein's theoretical activity means that physical phenomena are misinterpreted, especially when matter & space (as well as time) are fused together as a nonsensical entity e.g. Einstein claiming that the aether was actually space (whereas originally aether was thought to be some sort of matter in space, constituting a transmission medium for light). Hence Einstein tries to reduce everything in the universe to one thing - whether you call it 'spacetime', 'matter' or 'matter-space-time' or 'stuff' is not of major importance. That Einstein does this is so that he can manipulate the reader into accepting his logical paradoxes as somehow part of nature itself. We see the Einsteinian nonsense appear most clearly with time dilation & length contraction (TD&LC). With this philosophical conception clocks are meant to slow down relative to each other if they are moving relative to each other - likewise mutual length contraction. Hence logical paradox (i.e. mutually physically impossible situations) stands at the heart of Einstein's teaching. In this way, objectivity is thrown overboard, to be replaced by a 'consensus' or 'intersubjectivity' instead - what you would call 'peer review', much like the peer review of the Catholic Church which condemned Galileo. And the prejudices of modern physicists on Einstein's behalf are NOT less than that of the 17th century Catholic Church - now becoming more apparent due to the failure to solve the energy crisis, as I have already pointed out elsewhere! Einstein's Relativity is also fundamentally philosophical too - as I show in the Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology thread as well as here. This post is dedicated to showing that difference lies at the heart of genuine physical endeavour - the ontological separation of matter, space & time as can be found in any physics textbook - before you get to the Relativity section! FOLZONI
Are you suggesting that there isn't experimental evidence confirming time dilation? Or maybe your claim is that there is a better explanation than the theory Einstein put together? If so, care to share what you think it is?
Greetings Sarkus. Yes of course, I am not merely suggesting but indicating that there is no... ...experimental evidence confirming either time dilation or length contraction. As far as I can find there is NO experimental evidence whatsoever that proves length contraction - which I might add was concocted by George Fitzgerald then Hendrik Lorentz in order to save the stagnant luminiferous aether theory, the electromagnetic theoretical equivalent of Newton's Absolute Space. As for proof of time dilation you are probably referring to the fact of faster muons (produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays) surviving longer than slower muons (their speed taken relative to the earth & atmosphere). The facts about muons are entirely explained by the nature of the muons themselves & their interactions with the environment. Special relativity (SR) is not necessary to explain the observations but has rather been inserted into the issue in order to provide spurious proof for the theory. Hence the better explanation which you rightly request requires that I explain what SR 'explains' in an entirely different way - and that I also explain the phenomena presently attributed to GR differently as well. Luckily for you I have worked all these things out - though the "peer review" crew will not publish them so I have to present all the material here. As I have devoted this thread to Non-Monist Materialism, we will have to start alternative threads to deal e.g. with the logical paradoxes of SR and the issue of preferred reference frames, for the sake of which both TD&LC were introduced. So rather than merely tease you as to what the better explanation is - I'll let Einstein himself (Relativity chapter VII) share this better alternative with you - the alternative, which of course he rejected (my addition in blue for clarification)! The underlined section contains the answer, Sarkus, so I hope you won't feel to sarky about it in that Einstein himself already realized long ago that it is the only credible alternative to his own Special Relativity (SR).Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! TFOLZO
I don't disagree with regard length contraction - I'm not sure there is any experimental evidence as yet. But for time dilation there is plenty, and I'm not referring to muons: the wikipedia page on the Hafele-Keating experiment details quite a few experiments, and deals not only with the kinematic time dilation predicted by Einstein's work, but also the gravitational time dilation.[/QUOTE]
A very intelligent reply, Sarkus - so let me begin my apologizing to you for post #11, since there are a number of errors in it which I have been unable to edit so far, as the new format on the website is not yet fully up & running (moderators please take note). The Hafele-Keating Experiments (HKE) are very real & their results readily reproducible - atomic clocks slow down when flown East & speed up when flown West. The clocks also tick faster in the aircraft because they are subject to lower gravity than on the earth's surface. I think you will agree on these points. However, a closer look at the HKE merely shows that what is being measure here is NOT time dilation but merely the effects of gravity and inertia upon atomic clocks. Atomic clocks (which didn't exist when Einstein wrote) do not measure time with absolute accuracy but are mechanical devices like any other type of clock. A pendulum clock ticks more slowly in lower gravity - the opposite effect of gravity to that upon atomic clocks - but if I take a grandfather clock to the Moon, does that mean that time is passing more slowly on the Moon? Or that time is passing faster on the Moon because I also have an atomic clock on the Moon? The answers of course are 'no' because clocks, mere measuring devices of time, are not absolute yardsticks but approximate devices. As Newton said, time is absolute and flows evenly throughout the universe. Once we deny this - as Einstein does - we end up in unresolvable logical paradoxes. Any two clocks in mutual motion, according to Einstein, must now each tick more slowly than the other, a physical absurdity because it is physically impossible. The Wikipedia article, like physics textbooks, is merely written by physicists saturated with Einsteinian thinking. They do not see that they are holding two mutually incompatible positions. They well know that atomic and other clocks are but mechanical devices, yet their minds slip into Einsteinian thinking due to force of habit - just like people end up voting for political parties about which they tell all their friends they abhor and will never vote for again. When you apply your critical thinking, Sarkus, to the other HKE tests, you will realize that this criticism essentially applies to all of them! FOLZONI
This is simply wrong. Experimental evidence of SR Experimenta evidence of GR Pretending there is no evidence for relativity does not lend much to your already lacking credibility
They only useful reply at this point to a caped crusader of Einstein's relativity such as origin... ...is that GR is dependent upon SR since calculations claiming the perihelion shift of Mercury to be due to GR have to include a "correction factor" for SR due to length contraction of the orbit of Mercury - as you guru Clifford Will tells us in Was Einstein Right? Hence, should SR fall, GR goes with it! - just a little hint there for Batman & Robin from the Joker! FOLZONI
You'll find it'll help if you provide justifiable statements rather than mere Einsteinian dogmatic buffoonery!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! FOLZONI
The effects of gravity and inertia that are in line with the theory being tested. I.e. the experiment does support the predictions of Einstein's theory. The question then is surely whether that theory is the most rational explanation of the observations... observations that have been predicted and tested in experimentation. The pendulum clock would tick differently due to the period being proportional to the inverse square-root of gravity. This is a Newtonian and non-relativistic matter. It would, however, also tick differently due to the time-dilatory effects of gravity such that, if measured accurately enough, the prediction according to Newtonian motion would be shown to be slighty incorrect... by the amount of time-dilation due to gravity. A more accurate experiment of the effect of gravity on time dilation is here. This again supports Einstein's theory, but the question (as suggested) is whether alternative and more rational theories exist that predict the same results. So you seem to be arguing from consequence, and from what you perceive to be a "physical absurdity": you claim it is physically impossible so I would like to know why you think this... has it been shown to be, or is it merely personal incredulity on your part? What precisely do you think are the unresolvable logical paradoxes? Or, when applying my critical thinking, I see them supporting Einstein's theories, theories that I see no issues with such that I'll happily accept them until evidence arises to the contrary that favours an alternative theory that also fits all the observed data and experimental results. I look forward to your other threads on the matter, assuming the content doesn't go over my head. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Concerning the Hafele-Keating Experiments on clocks flown in jet aircraft. The underlying question is "what is the MOST RATIONAL". It is NOT rational to claim that time itself varies depending on observer motion; rather, it is the clocks that undergo subtle changes in rate due to the gravitational/inertial forces they undergo. By making the rate of time (rather than the rate of a clock) vary, you only create logical paradoxes as are familiar from SR elsewhere (e.g. the mutually moving clocks paradox & the travelled twin paradox). Your last statement is merely Einstein-inspired deduction but your first statement is correct. But my point then is that the altered rate of atomic clocks is entirely a quantum matter so this too is equally non-relativistic. Mere tradition & prejudice inserts Einsteinian thinking where it is neither required nor helpful. The alternative & more rational theory is that atomic clocks are influence subtly by gravitational & inertial forces - no SR or GR is required. Rather, SR and GR have been imposed on the situation, rather than the HKE situation demanding an explanation by SR & GR. You yourself see that pendulum clocks are explained by Newtonian motion - so why would atomic clocks not be explained by Newtonian plus quantum phenomena, without dragging in all the paraphernalia of Einstein's Relativity? The unresolvable nature of the logical paradoxes of relativity is best seen when considering the separated twins' paradox. We imagine the twins to be children. One twin stays on earth while the other travels very fast (e.g. to Alpha Centauri or some distant star) then returns to earth say 60 years later according to earth time. According to SR the travelled twin, having travelled fast for a prolonged period (since it is speed not acceleration which is causing the time dilation) will undergo time dilation. Hence when the twins reunite we have say a 70-year old earthbound twin meeting his 10-year old travelled twin brother. This may be very surprising but it is NOT the logical paradox! The logical paradox arises when we consider the question from the point of view (POV) of the travelled twin. He could claim, equally legitimately on the basis of SR, that he is not the one that has travelled and that rather it is the earth & solar system which has travelled very fast relative to him. Therefore the earth-based twin will undergo time dilation rather than the spaceship twin. Hence when they meet once more on earth we will have a 70-year old spaceship twin meeting his 10-year old earthbound twin brother. That is the logical paradox - a physical impossibility. To put the issue in simpler terms which no doubt paddoboy & origin could readily grasp: to accept Einstein's twin paradox as physically real & true is like claiming that Batman is taller than Robin AND Robin is taller than Batman. That they could be the same height is excluded but both statements cannot physically be true! Now Einstein 'resolved' the twin paradox deceitfully in an article in Naturwissenschaft where he contrived a situation where GR could reverse the time dilation changes. However Einstein's claims there are clearly false since the time dilation of SR is dependent on velocity & distance travelled whereas GR acts only thru inertial forces e.g. turning & reversing the spaceship (an independent question since inertial forces experienced by the spaceship are independent of the distance travelled, hence GR changes cannot explain away time dilation differences created by SR. FOLZONI
