Which is What? by Paul Reed

Kimmo

If one is not careful, then everything becomes 'information', in the sense that everything informs us about itself &/or something else. But then the whole discussion becomes meaningless. The differentiation has to be limited to information being a representation of something (it can still be existent in its own right, eg light). Which then leads to ensuring we do not reify information, and, given an understanding of the processes which rendered the information, we can understand its relationship with what it is representing.

The above comment leaves aside the fact that we only have information, we do not, in any sense of the word 'have' reality. But within our existentially closed system, that, assuming due process, is the approximation of reality, for us, and ultimately (ie once we get it right), the equivalent thereof.

Paul

Kimmo

Anything helps us to understand, and is hence 'information'. How does that help? The point is to differentiate what is real and what is a representation.

Paul

Why Einstein was wrong (Abridged Version)

Introduction

1 Distance is an artefact of physically existent entities, it being a difference between them in terms of spatial position. Existence necessitates physical space, but that can only be assigned via entities. So distance can only involve entities which exist at the same time. And they can only exist in one physically existent state at a time.

2 Therefore, any given distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time. The notion which presumes there could be varied results when quantifying it, either in terms of space or duration, is a fallacy. Whatever the measuring methodology, there can only be one outcome.

3 Unless this is understood, a problem arises when distance is expressed conceptually in terms of duration. The concept being that it can be measured as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But this is not possible, because there is no duration available during which that can actually happen, so it must be understood that there is no duration, as such. That is, the result is just an alternative expression to, and the equivalent of, a specific spatial measure. Misunderstanding this leads to the flawed application of the equation x = vt.

The misconception of time and timing (the AB example)

4 Einstein: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), Section 1 Part 1, Definition of Simultaneity, is the reference.

5 The events A and B were each attributed a time ("local") of existence, ie t(a) and t(b). Either there was a relationship between these timings, or not. If there was a relationship, then there was no timing issue to resolve. If there was no relationship, then nothing further could have been discerned since they were therefore variables defined on the basis of different references with no known relationship.

6 Put another way, presuming that the times represented when the events occurred, then whether they were the same is potentially irrelevant. Any given event must occur at a specific time. Whether events happened to occur at the same time does not necessarily imply any physical significance. However the analysis involved the distance AB, and there cannot be a distance between something which exists and something else which does not. Therefore, A and B existed at the same time.

7 Yet another way of putting this is that establishing the timing relationship of A and B must involve another reference, so that the two can be compared and any difference identified. But this is what timing does, because the time shown on any device only has meaning if it is corresponds with the single reference to which all such devices are related, ie a conceptual constant rate of change. That is why they must be synchronised, otherwise the system is useless, allowing for the practicalities of so doing. That reference is not another time, but the time (in Einstein's terminology "common time"). Timing devices just 'tell' the time.

8 Hence the timing relationship which supposedly needed to be inferred, ie "local time" to "common time", was non-existent; a false distinction which resulted in a superfluous 'layer' of timing for which there was no justification. Presumption of the distance AB meant that A and B must have been existent at the same time anyway, although this, as with what is the reference for timing, was not understood. That is, t(a) must have equalled t(b), and there was no issue to resolve. This timing mistake reflects reliance on Poincaré's flawed concept of simultaneity.

9 Furthermore, the comparison of AB to BA was effected in terms of time incurred with consecutive, not concurrent, timings. This was also incorrect. Not only is there no duration in a spatial circumstance, but AB cannot be compared to BA on the basis of subsequent timings. Because such timings cannot be presumed to relate to AB, as either A and/or B could have altered over that time, and therefore the distance could have altered. The measurement can only represent whatever was deemed to constitute A and B, and therefore AB, at a specific time.

10 The quantification of distance in terms of a conceptual duration incurred was not an issue, had it been understood. Neither was the use of an example of light as the reference for calibrating distance and duration, with the condition that its speed be deemed constant, inherently a problem (although this was not observational light). Any method, involving any direction, and any constant, would suffice for measuring a distance, if properly calculated and represented. Leaving aside the failure to differentiate existent reality from the existent light based representation of it (see below), the errors, in this limited context, were assuming physical existence, and hence any artefact thereof (eg distance), continues to exist in the same physically existent state over time, and not understanding the reference used for timing.

The misconception of observation

11 It is argued that the AB example is explainable in terms of observation. Time of existence, and time of observation (ie receipt of light), were asserted by Einstein to be the same if whatever was involved was in the "immediate proximity". This is correct as an approximation, though would need definition. But in reality there is always a difference, which is fundamental to highlighting the flaw in his argument. The physically existent occurrence, physically existent light, and physically existent observer, are all physically separate. Therefore, there will always be a delay whilst light, which is a physically existent representation of the occurrence, travels and, in a few cases, is received (ie is in the line of travel of, and interacts with) by an entity which can process the physical input available.

12 Introducing the differential between time of existence, and time of observation of existence, is irrelevant. As before, the timing devices must have been synchronised, otherwise the timings were meaningless, and since the distance AB is presumed, then A and B must have existed at the same time. If A and B did not exist at the same time, then there could not have been a distance AB to observe.

13 In the context of observation then, assuming a simplification of the real conditions, these timings must represent the time at which light was received, and any difference could only have been a function of the time delay for light to travel from B to A, or vice versa. That is, again there is no issue to resolve. The difference in timing would have been because these were observations of reality (ie receipts of light), not the occurrence of reality. However, there was no observational light in Einstein's theories anyway, just a constant, which happened to be an example of light.

14 There is always a distance and therefore a delay whilst light travels. Indeed, what was the spatial relationship between the observer and the light as at the time of occurrence and the creation of that light, could alter whilst it is travelling. Neither is physical existence, either in terms of the occurrence, or the representation of it (eg light), affected physically by observation (eg receipt of light) and the subsequent processing. Because that was not existent subsequently, which is a necessary condition for any physical effect to occur. The physically existent representation of the reality just ceases to exist in that physical form upon receipt, as it would if the interaction had been with an inanimate entity. One of the physical features of light, as in what is physically existent and can be processed by a sensory system if received, being that it persists in the same (or nearly so) physical form over time.

15 By substituting c for v, ie a specific velocity for a generic one, c was asserted to be: 2AB/(t'(a) - t(a)). Which was wrong, because that time involved duration incurred from subsequent timings, apart from being deemed an elapsed time in both cases anyway, which it is not. Assuming the quantity is doubled, it should have been either twice A to B or B to A, or the sum of A to B and B to A incurred at the same time. So it should have been: c = 2AB/2(t(a) - t(b)). Or simply, as considering either direction is irrelevant, c = AB/(t(a) - t(b)).

16 Which, although correct, is a statement of the obvious. That is, the velocity is a ratio of total distance travelled to the time taken to do so, ie the definition of velocity. Apart from which, what this actually means in the context of physical existence needs to be understood, ie since there is no duration as such, it is a conceptual expression of a spatial quantity. Duration being concerned with differences between physical existences, ie the rate at which turnover occurs. And c was not the speed of observational light, it was just a constant which happened to be defined in terms of an xample of light.

17 A key statement in 1905, section 1, part 1, Definition of Simultaneity is:

"But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" t(a) from A towards B, let it at the "B time" t(b) be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" t(a). In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t(b)-t(a)=t'(a)-t(b)."

18 In the context of a proper differentiation between reality and the light based representation thereof, this thinking is, essentially, correct. Recipients of light representing the same physical occurrence, will receive those lights at different times because they are in different spatial locations (ignoring any vanishingly small differences there might be between those lights). Fundamentally, comparing these times and distances will reveal the time at which the occurrence happened.

19 But Einstein did not differentiate reality and the light based representation of it, so there was no observational light. In actuality, his 'local time' must have been the time of receipt of the light based representation of the occurrence, but he deemed it to be the time of occurrence. At the 'local' level this mistake was rationalised with the notion that they were the same if in the "immediate proximity". Which is incorrect, as there must always be a time delay whilst light travels.

20 Beyond the 'immediate proximity' (which could never be defined because it cannot be a correct concept), he effectively asserted, ie by virtue of his mistakes, that the time at which the occurrences happened is a function of light, and particularly its speed, which is obviously incorrect. The time of receipt of the light representation of the occurrence is a function of light speed, not the occurrence. The actual relationship between any physically existent state (ie occurrence) and the light (ie representation thereof) created as it occurs, is a function of their physical attributes and hence the way they interact. But any such actual differences/complexities involved do no impact on this generic argument.

21 The critical point being that the light Einstein referred to was not observational light. He was using an example of light as a conceptual reference constant against which to calibrate duration and distance. In other words, the fact that it was light, was irrelevant, it could have been any constant. His light was just a dissassociated "ray of light", with an entity referred to as an "observer", and the concept of "frames of reference" (later examples used lightening). All of which can leave the reader with the impression that observation had been accounted for.

22 But he only invoked a constant, so the 'observer/frame of reference' is just the reference used for comparison in order to identify difference. It has nothing to do with observation, because there was no observational light. The determining factor being what he did, not what he said he would do. Which means that the second postulate as defined is irrelevant, because he did not deploy it as defined. Therefore all the ensuing attempts, including his own, to reconcile a presumed constancy in light with a rate of change in reality, are pointless, because the issue is non-existent.

23 In sum, Einstein shifted the time differential from the finish of the physical process, where it does occur and relates to the time of receipt of the physically existent representation of existence (eg light), to the start, by deeming it, incorrectly, to be a characteristic of physical existence itself.

24 The book: 'why does E=mc2' by Cox & Forshaw will now also be used as a reference, as this is a standard and readable exposition of Einstein's argument. That is, this is a repetition of certain accepted assertions which underpin the argument about relativity.

Jacek

I suggest you re-read it then, or ask specific questions which I will answer.

Re Einstein, see my post above. Others quoted Einstein in trying to refute what I was saying (and not specifically about Einstein). So in order to avoid a string of posts, and similar ones in different blogs I put this up. Indeed, I have just posted some more paras in respect of spacetime on Mikalai's blog in response to qsa.

What he said is irrelevant. It is what he did which matters. And that has import in the second postulate. Because he did not deploy it as defined. In other words, it is null and void as defined, and the ensuing search for a reconciliation of constancy of light and rate of change is pointless. That is because there was no observational light in his theories, nobody observed anything, because there was nothing available for them to do so. All he had was a constant which he illustrated in terms of an example of light, eg a ray, or lightening. c is not the speed of observational light, it is a constant deployed to calibrate distance and duration.

After further doses of coffee I will read the newly published essays.

Paul

Anton

Not so. One fights anybody with what they actually said and relates that it to the true nature of whatever it is they are commenting on. One of the problems with Einstein being that most people do not even know what he said. As I had no background whatsever, I just read what he said, not what the standard interpretation is. This is incidentally, just the start of a paper about 14 pages long, I put this up as two respondents started quoting Einstein at me as a way of countering what I was saying (which was not about Einstein).

Apart from which I could ask you if there is anything wrong with what is said in the extract?

Incidentally, Einstein defined SR as involving:

-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary

-only fixed shape bodies

-only light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed

It is special because there is no gravitational force, or more precisely, no differential in the gravitational forces incurred.

And his second posulate of 1905 is irrelevant. because he does not deploy it as defined, as there is no observational light in Einstein, just a constant used to calibrate duration and distance which is described as an example of light.

In other words, although he was wrong, most people are trying to resolve issues which Einstein did not even have.

Paul

Lev

"Why is it that "information must be a representation of something"? Because precisely of what you say next. The concept of information is being applied to almost anything, on the basis that anything gives us information. But this is a meaningless definition. Indeed, more fundamentally, the whole concept is a fallacy. But since the essay asked for a differentiation, then I gave the only one that makes some sort of sense, physically.

Paul

Vladimir

I have of course read your theory before, and while I cannot remember (getting old) if indeed its basic premise revolves around sequence of discrete definitive physcally existent states, then we are in agreement. Shame you do not want to engage on other matters.

Paul

Wish I could, having occupied my time at ludicrous hours of the morning, as I do not sleep well, I then spend the day renovating my son's flat. But I keep telling myself it's in a good cause, ie to ensure the granddaughters get into a good school. Off out to the theatre now. In other words, if I had the time I'd check your beautiful universe.

Paul