Alternative Models of Reality

Eckard Blumschein

Georgina,

"While McTaggart's view does not cohere well with the Newtonian physics framework, it coheres much better with the framework from special relativity."

(quoted from McTaggart and Modern Physics, in Presentism and McTaggart, philsci-archive.pitt.edu)

I am claiming to show that special Relativity is based on inaccurate thoughts. See my posting of Feb. 2, 2019).

Within the extension-less ideal border between past and future, there is no change. Nothing may happen. Anything that happened did so in the past. Anything that will happen will do so in the future. While the word "now" is as inaccurate as also are presently, today, and the like, I appreciate your "uni-tempora Now" as a clear statement against individual or local times from Lorentz, Poincaré, und Einstein up to McT's plurality of C series.

Eckard Blumschein

Correction:

Feb. 7, 2019 @ 17:35 GMT (topic: Alternative Models of Reality)

Georgina Woodward

Eckard, you wrote,"Within the extension-less ideal border between past and future, there is no change. Nothing may happen. Anything that happened did so in the past. Anything that will happen will do so in the future.'EB.

With uni-temporal Now being the temporal expression for the configuration of all that exists: Anything that has already happened, happened in former uni-temporal Now configurations, no longer existing. Anything that will happen, will happen in uni-temporal Now configurations that are yet to be. This avoids there being somewhere called past and somewhere called future where things can happen. Without those some-wheres there can't be temporal paradoxes. What has happened, is happening and will happen is all related to uni-temporal Now. That also frees up the past, present, future terminology for use in relation to observation products.

Eckard Blumschein

Georgina,

So far, I am unable to see how presentism may resolve paradoxes. On the contrary, it may create new ones.

I got the impression, that after perhaps similar ideas by our Peter Jackson, our Rob McEachern has convincingly shown that John Bell's test gave a wrong interpretation of Stern/Gerlach experiment without however questioning classically entangled pairs. I also got the impression that our Edwin Klingman correctly attributed gamma to energy. The latter approach may fit well to what I wrote here on Feb. 7, 2019 @ 17:35 GMT (topic: Alternative Models of Reality, thread by Paul Merriam).

In brief, instead of local time, of Lorentz' relativity, or of Einstein's Relativity of time we may consider mass and kinetic energy depending via gamma directly on a velocity v by c that is understood according to common sense, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton, cf. my above mentioned posting.

I don't hide that I also prefer Galileo Galilei's notion of infinity. Leibniz was certainly not strictly correct when he claimed that the rules of finite mathematics are valid within the infinite too.

Georgina Woodward

I would prefer the name "Uni-temporalism"; as i have explained the present (observation product) is different from uni-temporal Now, the configuration of all existing things. There is a clear difference between apparent time due to signal receipt and processing and foundational time, the configuration of existence. As everything exists in uni-temporal Now there is no other place of existence. Ruling out all time travel and Grandfather type paradoxes. Grandfather does not exist back then to be killed, nor younger self, or anything.

Georgina Woodward

Re Twins paradox; material things are not affected by how they are perceived by an observer. It is no paradox that different observers make different observation products from the signals received by them.

Periodic phenomena are invariant under translation, moving clocks therefore only appear to run slow ( excluding noise etc.) Metabolism is not a clock, many things affect its rate.

(If foundational time, rather than just apparent time due to signal delay, was slowed the clocks and twins would have to be at different foundational times but there is no other time to be at, only -Now.)

Georgina Woodward

Andromeda paradox: there has to be differentiation of material happening and signals by which knowledge of the event could eventually be known. As there is only -Now the material happening of invasion launch is true for the entire material universe, it is part of the changing -Now configuration. Distance from the signal whereby knowledge of it could be obtained is altered by movement towards it compared to staying same distance away. It is only altering the relation to the potential sensory data not whether the event has materially happened or not

Steve Dufourny

Hello Georgina, Eckard,Paul, it is a beautiful discussion,a pleasure to read , I liked read all your ideas about this present futur past this time,thanks for sharing,take care

friendly

Eckard Blumschein

Georgina,

The three paradoxes you mentioned belong to Relativity. A video that explained the fabricated by Penrose Andromeda paradox reminded me of Einstein's train/embankment thought experiment I dealt with on Feb. 7. Grandfather paradox and twin paradox can also be understood as nonsensical if one rejects application of Poincaré/Einstein "synchronization".

I agree on that "things are not affected by how they are perceived by an observer". When I came across a stupid video "The dead of now & the Andromeda paradox" (in German) I felt that you should be my ally against Relativity, not relativity.

Most paradoxes are to me valuable indications to hidden or denied inconsistencies. Given a presentist attributes e.g. the minimal duration for perception of a tone to just a single period (Augenblick), doesn't this logically exclude a shorter present duration of the tone?

What about invariance under translation, does it always hold for processes of limited duration, and for past processes as well as for expected processes?

Georgina Woodward

Eckard, you wrote "So far, I am unable to see how presentism may resolve paradoxes. On the contrary, it may create new ones." Having read what i wrote about the paradoxes using the uni-temporal framework has your thought changed? What paradox would you like considered? A tone is a heard sound, an observation product, not an element of Object reality. The potential sensory input is a pressure wave in the external environment. While the product requires reception of the wavelength/frequency, partial wavelengths of the potential input (in the environment) could be considered (I don't know why one would want to). The potential input is different from the product formed. Period of oscillation or wave motion is invariant under translation, that is mathematical fact. It applies to actual happening not observation products or imaginings.

Eckard Blumschein

Georgina,

In order to resolve the paradoxes of Relativity, one has to abandon the unjustified basis of Relativity. Well, "the uni-temporal framework" of presentism is a statement that contradicts to Relativity of time. However it doesn't reveal the fundamental logical flaw behind Einstein's arguments which are up to now believed by a majority of physicists as correct and experimentally confirmed. Already the 100 authors against Einstein (I did not yet get the book) might have failed to show that flaw and resolve these paradoxes.

A frequency means how often something repeats within a time-span. Ergo, measurement of frequency objectively requires at least one repetition. There is no possibility to measure the width of an ideal border between two properties.

When you wrote: "Period of oscillation or wave motion is invariant under translation, that is mathematical fact" you confused reality with mathematics.

Georgina Woodward

Eckard, by Uni-temporal framework I meant the explanatory framework i have presented on this site. Uni-temporal referring to there being only one time everywhere, that time being the existing configuration or pattern of all that exists. I have, several times now, pointed out that as well as that foundational time there is also time pertaining to the observation products formed by observers from received signals. Because of that there is relativity of present experience. The fundamental flaw is lack of differentiation between material reality existing outside of the observer's observation products and the products. There has to be the source reality where material objects, emitters of Em signals and material receivers exist as well as the space-time products generated by the receivers.

Georgina Woodward

Eckard, I don't know the minimum number of wavelengths required for hearing a frequency of sound as a pitch. Perhaps there needs to be a certain duration for it to be registered. Perhaps it also depends on amplitude making the difference between if it is audible or not. I have talked more about EM radiation and less about pressure waves as sensory inputs. I will have to find out more. When considering an ideal clock as in the light clock thought experiment it (material clock) ought to comply with the mathematics pertaining to period and translation. Comparison is sometimes made between that light clock idea and the travelling twin in the twins paradox. But the material travelling twin and his material clock ought to be unaffected by the translation. The products of stay at home twin receiving signals from him are affected because of the signal delays.

Georgina Woodward

To be consistent, not mixing products and inputs, i should have said-...required for hearing a frequency of a pressure wave as a pitch.

Eckard Blumschein

Georgina,

With "the fundamental logical flaw behind Einstein's arguments" I meant his use of a "synchronization" method that is only correct for v=0 in case v=|=0 too. Of course, his wrong reasoning was certainly influenced by the fictionist Aaron Bernstein, and he confused observation with reality.

While my criticism began with my opinion that one cannot perceive something that did not yet happen in reality, I am sure, we must not equate observation of reality with reality itself. Let's forget all the naive observer stuff and see what remains from Relativity.

The minimal for attribution of a frequency required number of repetitions can be understood with Nyquist criterion.

Georgina Woodward

Eckard, I agree that an event has to have happened (in the source reality) before it can be perceived. It is perceived via the processing of received signals (sensory input), and for that to happen those signals must have been emitted and transmitted to the observer.There is a causal order.

Georgina Woodward

Is this helpful?

John D. Norton Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/goodies " Definitions often presume certain factual conditions and these conditions may be non-trivial. ... Einstein's definition of simultaneity rests upon non-trivial, factual assumptions. It assumes that the synchronization procedure is always applicable, no matter what the speeds of the clocks A and B happen to be. Indeed this must be the case on pain of violating the principle of relativity. For if it failed then we would have distinguished preferred motions, that is, those select motions for which the definition is applicable."

Georgina Woodward

Stumbled upon the Ehrenfest paradox; that like the barn pole type paradoxes muddles material reality and observation products. It makes calculations of what would be seen in the reference frame according to a centrally located observer. Which is observation products not the underlying material reality.An observer stationary at the center supposedly sees the cylinder radius contracted. Assuming instead that the cylinder remains of fixed size and rods around the perimeter shorten, more measuring rods would fit around the perimeter. Observation products do not have the same rigidity as material solids.They are distributed within the seen space time product. That said, If the motion of the apparatus is of sufficient speed for relativistic effects the stationary observer would not be able to discern the individual rods to say that they appear shorter in length.

Eckard Blumschein

Yes Georgina,

I am not interested any more in the many paradoxes which altogether can be attributed to the same mistake: use of a "synchronization" which is obviously valid only for the relative velocity v=0 but invalid for v=|=0 in just this case.

Incidentally, I cannot see any logical justification for a "centrally located observer" if there is no a-priori preferred point in space.

Eckard Blumschein

The text of "100 Autoren ..." is available in German with typos.

In Apeiron vol.20 (2018), Buenker (Wuppertal) didn't question STR. Were therefore all 100 authors of 1931 wrong? Einstein was perhaps correct when he argued: Why so many arguments instead of a single one?

Laymen might be alarmed by words like Norton's "subtle" or Einstein's "evidently" instead of the admission of a lacking logical basis.

Let me criticise the 100. Having read just a few, I doubt that they didn't focus on STR and its basic "synchronization". Wiki also omits decisive facts.

Incidentally, I disagree with some statements in Paul's AB-series, in particular with different nows.

Eckard Blumschein

Norton: "Einstein's definition of simultaneity ... assumes that the synchronization procedure is always applicable ..."

EB: Indeed, this is the basis of Relativity (capitalized because it is just a belief).

Norton:" ... , no matter what the speeds of the clocks A and B happen to be."

EB: What matters is v, the velocity of B relative to A.

Norton: "Indeed this must be the case on pain of violating the principle of relativity. For if it failed then we would have distinguished preferred motions, that is, those select motions for which the definition is applicable."

EB: No. Galileo Galilei's principle of relativity must not be violated. According to common sense, the only case where the "synchronization" procedure is applicable is v=0.

« Previous Page Next Page »