Absolute motion

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

It is not a non-sequitur. We construct reference frames to describe physical systems. These reference frames do not establish any notion of intrinsic motion or intrinsic, absolute rest. Therefore we can completely describe a system without any implicit or explicit, derived or supposed, statements about absolute rest.

In the case of the light clock thought experiments, the scenarios aren't actual physical scenarios which are being described, they're thought experiments.

The depiction of the light clocks demonstrates the implicit assumption of absolute rest.

Morbert wrote: »

Take away the reference frames and the physical scenario remains. The three different scenarios you have tendered, however, disappear, since they are artefacts of coordinate systems, and we are left with a coordinate free manifold of events with hyperbolic causal structure between the events, with no a priori notion of past, present, space by itself or time by itself, and hence no notion of intrinsic, absolute motion. Think of it this way: If an object had intrinsic motion, this means it changes its position in space. It is at a location, and then is at another, different location. But to specify locations in this way, you need a coordinate system, so unless you suppose a cosmic coordinate structure exists a priori in nature, intrinsic motion must be an unphysical artefact of an arbitrary reference frame.

The physical distinction between the scenarios isn't an artefact of co-ordinate systems, not least because co-ordinate systems aren't physical. The current running through the treadmill when the treadmill is switched on, as opposed to the absence of a current when the treadmill is switched off, is not dependent on mathematical co-ordinates, nor is the movement of a walkers limbs.

You say that we need co-ordinates to specify the change in location of an object, implying that we need arbitrary mathematical co-ordinates; but that isn't necessarily the case; we can look at the world around us, without any mathematical co-ordinates - because they don't exist in nature - and observe the relative motion of objects; from that alone we can conclude that one of the relatively moving objects has to actually be in motion.

Morbert wrote: »

And again, there are no mysterious dynamics unless you adopt Lorentzian relativity. In Einstein's relativity, you have well defined, hyperbolic, geometric kinematics. I have explained this several times now and your refusal to accept this simple fact about the structure of relativity is bordering on a childish stubbornness.

I think you might be struggling with cognitive dissonance; I don't doubt that you genuinely believe that you have addressed the issues raised, but you haven't. You've simply stated what spacetime is, and how objects are represented in spacetime diagrams, or how objects exist in spacetime; you haven't outlined the mysterious dynamics which cause static world tubes, at angles to each other, to manifest in what we observe as relative motion.

Duggys Housemate

Roosh, there isn't a paragraph you have written in this entire thread which makes any kind of sense. You prove your own theorems to your own satisfaction, and move on. you cant understand the maths, and nor do you get that this has been empirically proven.

roosh

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Roosh, there isn't a paragraph you have written in this entire thread which makes any kind of sense. You prove your own theorems to your own satisfaction, and move on. you cant understand the maths, and nor do you get that this has been empirically proven.

Physically distinguished
Are you familiar with the concept of a treadmill; are you familiar with the concept of electricity; are you familiar with the concept of a treadmill being switched on, and a treadmill being switched off, where the former involves an electric current running through the machine; do these concepts make sense to you?

If you are familiar with those, and they make sense to you, then a treadmill which is switched on is physically distinguishable from one which is switched off - does that make sense?

The physical difference between those two scenarios - treadmill on and treadmill off - is not dependent on mathematical co-ordinates; they are physical differences - does that make sense?


World tubes
Are you familiar with the concept of 4 Dimensional world tubes, in Minkowski spacetime; are you familiar with the concept of relative motion; do they make sense?

Can you explain how world tubes give rise to the observation of relative motion?

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

In the case of the light clock thought experiments, the scenarios aren't actual physical scenarios which are being described, they're thought experiments.

The depiction of the light clocks demonstrates the implicit assumption of absolute rest.

No it doesn't. You can repeat this nonsense ad infinitum, until your keyboard wears away. It won't make it any more true.

The physical distinction between the scenarios isn't an artefact of co-ordinate systems, not least because co-ordinate systems aren't physical. The current running through the treadmill when the treadmill is switched on, as opposed to the absence of a current when the treadmill is switched off, is not dependent on mathematical co-ordinates, nor is the movement of a walkers limbs.

That is an incredibly strange thing to say. The "on/off" state of a treadmill is the same in all three scenarios. In one scenario, the current is keeping the treadmill moving, countering the friction force of the surrounding stationary environment. In another scenario, the current is keeping the treadmill still, countering the friction force of the surrounding, moving environment. In the third scenario, both treadmill and environment are moving. The only difference between these scenarios is the choice of coordinate labels.

You say that we need co-ordinates to specify the change in location of an object, implying that we need arbitrary mathematical co-ordinates; but that isn't necessarily the case; we can look at the world around us, without any mathematical co-ordinates - because they don't exist in nature - and observe the relative motion of objects; from that alone we can conclude that one of the relatively moving objects has to actually be in motion.

I have corrected you on this before. You are misapplying the law of the excluded middle and tendering a non sequitur because of it. That one object must be intrinsically moving does not follow from the observation of relative motion. I have challenged you numerous times to back up your assertion, and actually demonstrate that it does logically follow.

I think you might be struggling with cognitive dissonance; I don't doubt that you genuinely believe that you have addressed the issues raised, but you haven't. You've simply stated what spacetime is, and how objects are represented in spacetime diagrams, or how objects exist in spacetime; you haven't outlined the mysterious dynamics which cause static world tubes, at angles to each other, to manifest in what we observe as relative motion.

Again (and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again), Einstein's relativity posits no mysterious dynamics. It instead posits a well defined hyperbolic geometry, defining the kinematics of the system. Hence, it need not postulate any mysterious dynamics. You definition of mysterious dynamics seems to be a non-dynamical structure that does not have the form you intuitively assume it should have. It is no more mysterious than the kinematics of a 1st year Newtonian mechanics course.

In short, you are presupposing a Newtonian causal structure, and misunderstanding the breakdown of that assumption as a need to introduce mysterious dynamics. What is ironic is the metaphysical framework you are trying to push, actually does require the introduction of mysterious dynamics.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

No it doesn't. You can repeat this nonsense ad infinitum, until your keyboard wears away. It won't make it any more true.

And you can keep asserting the contrary for longer and the validity of it won't increase one iota.

Morbert wrote: »

That is an incredibly strange thing to say. The "on/off" state of a treadmill is the same in all three scenarios. In one scenario, the current is keeping the treadmill moving, countering the friction force of the surrounding stationary environment. In another scenario, the current is keeping the treadmill still, countering the friction force of the surrounding, moving environment. In the third scenario, both treadmill and environment are moving. The only difference between these scenarios is the choice of coordinate labels.

And therein, again, lie the implicit assumptions of absolute motion.

It might be worth clarifying that we are talking about the motion of the observer to the treadmill, and the environment; not necessarily the treadmill to the environment; but I'll address the issue as you have formulated it.


Stationary environment
The "stationary environment" is a statement about the absolute motion of the environment; in this case, the absolute rest state of the environment. This is because it begs the question, relative to what is it stationary? It isn't stationary relative to the treadmill.

If you suggest that it is a non-physical "hypothetical observer", or a mathematical reference frame, then you are guilty of ascribing physical characteristics to a non-physical entity; but we don't need to make the observer hypothetical, we can introduce a physical observer at rest relative to the environment; this doesn't resolve the issue, however, because it simply introduces another object into the "stationary environment" which becomes part of "the environment", which is, as a whole, considered stationary.


Indeed, we don't need to worry about mathematical reference frames, because we're not looking to measure anything; we are simply talking about the observation of relative motion, and what can be deduced from it; we are not necessarily concerned with the relative velocity.


Still treadmill
To say the current is keeping the treadmill "still" is yet another statement about the absolute rest state of the treadmill, because, again, the question is begged, relative to what is the treadmill still? It isn't the environment. Hypothetical observers, or additional physical observers don't resolve the issue either, for the reason mentioned above.


Both are moving
When we consider only relative motion, then both are always moving, relative to each other; I don't see how you can cling to the idea that only relative motion makes sense when you suggest that "both are moving" is a distinguishable scenario from "one is moving" and "the other is moving".

Of course, in order to do this you need to introduce a third frame of reference, which isn't part of the original formulation; demonstrating that the three physically distinguished scenarios aren't just different ways of labeling the same scenario under Einsteinian relativity, because an additional observer needs to be added.

Root of the problem

That appears to be the root of the problem, you are confusing the three ways of labeling each physically distinguished scenario, with three physically distinguished scenarios, themselves. You are taking the possible conclusions that can be drawn from one of the three physically distinguished scenarios, to be the three different scenarios in and of themselves; this is a mistake however (unless absolute motion is assumed);

The three physically distinguished scenarios are:

Scenario 1
The treadmill is switched on and moving; the current is running through the treadmill; the observer is moving his/her limbs at a pace that exactly offsets the pace of the treadmill.; this gives rise to relative motion between the observer and the treadmill.

Possible Conclusions: the current is keeping the treadmill moving; the current is keeping the treadmill stationary.

Either the treadmill is moving, or the observer is; or both are. QED


Bear in mind that both are always moving relative to each other


Scenario 2
The treadmill is switched off, and not moving; there is no current running through the treadmill; the observer is moving his/her arms and limbs at the same rate as 1 above; this gives rise to the relative motion between the observer and the treadmill.

Possible Conclusions:the movement of the observers limbs is causing him to move; the movement of the observers limbs is causing him to remain stationary.

Either the observer is moving, or the treadmill is moving; or both are. QED

Bear in mind that both are always moving relative to each other



Scenario 3
The treadmill is switched on; there is a current running through the treadmill; the observer is moving his/her limbs at a rate that does not exactly offset the pace of the treadmill; this gives rise to the same measured velocity between the observer and the treadmill.

Possible Conclusions:the current is causing the treadmill to move; the current is causing the treadmill to remain still; the movement of the observers limbs are causing him to move; the movement of limbs is causing him to remain stationary.

Either the observer is moving, or the treadmill is; or both are. QED.

Bear in mind that both are always moving relative to each other



Overall conclusion
All three of these, physically distinguished scenarios will give rise to the observed relative motion between the observer and the treadmill; one of these scenarios is a logical necessity to account for the relative motion between the observer and the treadmill; each scenario implies absolute motion, therefore absolute motion is a logical necessity.

Morbert wrote: »

I have corrected you on this before. You are misapplying the law of the excluded middle and tendering a non sequitur because of it. That one object must be intrinsically moving does not follow from the observation of relative motion. I have challenged you numerous times to back up your assertion, and actually demonstrate that it does logically follow.

You seem to have an odd habit of assuming that you have adequately addressed issues that you haven't. Any of the "corrections" you have proffered have been challenged; the challenge to that particular point is the question on the mysterious dynamics that cause stationary world tubes to give rise to relative motion. Your response to this is, as below, related to the kinematics of the system.

Your mistake is in assuming that this adequately addresses the issue.

Morbert wrote: »

Again <snip - redundant repetition>

Einstein's relativity posits no mysterious dynamics. It instead posits a well defined hyperbolic geometry, defining the kinematics of the system. Hence, it need not postulate any mysterious dynamics. You definition of mysterious dynamics seems to be a non-dynamical structure that does not have the form you intuitively assume it should have. It is no more mysterious than the kinematics of a 1st year Newtonian mechanics course.

In short, you are presupposing a Newtonian causal structure, and misunderstanding the breakdown of that assumption as a need to introduce mysterious dynamics. What is ironic is the metaphysical framework you are trying to push, actually does require the introduction of mysterious dynamics.

"A well defined hyperbolic geometry" simply states what spacetime is; it doesn't explain how static world tubes give rise to relative motion.

To appreciate Einstein's marvellous and far-reaching solution to this conundrum, we need to distinguish between kinematics and dynamics. Kinematics is simply about describing the basic aspects of motion such as the positions of objects and how these change with time. It is not concerned with the causes of motion.

Space, time and Einstein

Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics that describes the motion of points, bodies (objects) and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without consideration of the causes of motio

Kinematics - wiki

Kinematics is the study of the way objects move. It focuses on describing an object's motion, and doesn't explain how forces affect it.

A-level phyiscs - wikibooks



Saying what spacetime is doesn't address the question of how static world tubes give rise to relative motion; Kinematics is a description of motion, not an explanation as to what causes it.

So, in the absence of an explanation of the exceptionally mysterious dynamics, which outlines how static world tubes give rise to relative motion, we are left with a theory about relativity which not only can't account for the observation of relative motion, but logically should preclude it.


In the absence of an explanation of such dynamics, we are left with the logical necessity of absolute motion to account for relative motion.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

And you can keep asserting the contrary for longer and the validity of it won't increase one iota.

Actually, you claimed "the depiction of the light clocks demonstrates the implicit assumption of absolute rest.", therefore the burden is on you to tender such a demonstration. So if you like, I can rephrase my "assertion" as a request: Please demonstrate intrinsic motion from the light-clock depictions.

And therein, again, lie the implicit assumptions of absolute motion.

It might be worth clarifying that we are talking about the motion of the observer to the treadmill, and the environment; not necessarily the treadmill to the environment; but I'll address the issue as you have formulated it.


Stationary environment
The "stationary environment" is a statement about the absolute motion of the environment; in this case, the absolute rest state of the environment. This is because it begs the question, relative to what is it stationary? It isn't stationary relative to the treadmill.

If you suggest that it is a non-physical "hypothetical observer", or a mathematical reference frame, then you are guilty of ascribing physical characteristics to a non-physical entity; but we don't need to make the observer hypothetical, we can introduce a physical observer at rest relative to the environment; this doesn't resolve the issue, however, because it simply introduces another object into the "stationary environment" which becomes part of "the environment", which is, as a whole, considered stationary.

Indeed, we don't need to worry about mathematical reference frames, because we're not looking to measure anything; we are simply talking about the observation of relative motion, and what can be deduced from it; we are not necessarily concerned with the relative velocity.

Still treadmill
To say the current is keeping the treadmill "still" is yet another statement about the absolute rest state of the treadmill, because, again, the question is begged, relative to what is the treadmill still? It isn't the environment. Hypothetical observers, or additional physical observers don't resolve the issue either, for the reason mentioned above.


Both are moving
When we consider only relative motion, then both are always moving, relative to each other; I don't see how you can cling to the idea that only relative motion makes sense when you suggest that "both are moving" is a distinguishable scenario from "one is moving" and "the other is moving".

Of course, in order to do this you need to introduce a third frame of reference, which isn't part of the original formulation; demonstrating that the three physically distinguished scenarios aren't just different ways of labeling the same scenario under Einsteinian relativity, because an additional observer needs to be added.

Root of the problem

That appears to be the root of the problem, you are confusing the three ways of labeling each physically distinguished scenario, with three physically distinguished scenarios, themselves. You are taking the possible conclusions that can be drawn from one of the three physically distinguished scenarios, to be the three different scenarios in and of themselves; this is a mistake however (unless absolute motion is assumed);

The three physically distinguished scenarios are:

Scenario 1
The treadmill is switched on and moving; the current is running through the treadmill; the observer is moving his/her limbs at a pace that exactly offsets the pace of the treadmill.; this gives rise to relative motion between the observer and the treadmill.

Possible Conclusions: the current is keeping the treadmill moving; the current is keeping the treadmill stationary.

Either the treadmill is moving, or the observer is; or both are. QED

Bear in mind that both are always moving relative to each other

Scenario 2
The treadmill is switched off, and not moving; there is no current running through the treadmill; the observer is moving his/her arms and limbs at the same rate as 1 above; this gives rise to the relative motion between the observer and the treadmill.

Possible Conclusions:the movement of the observers limbs is causing him to move; the movement of the observers limbs is causing him to remain stationary.

Either the observer is moving, or the treadmill is moving; or both are. QED

Bear in mind that both are always moving relative to each other

Scenario 3
The treadmill is switched on; there is a current running through the treadmill; the observer is moving his/her limbs at a rate that does not exactly offset the pace of the treadmill; this gives rise to the same measured velocity between the observer and the treadmill.

Possible Conclusions:the current is causing the treadmill to move; the current is causing the treadmill to remain still; the movement of the observers limbs are causing him to move; the movement of limbs is causing him to remain stationary.

Either the observer is moving, or the treadmill is; or both are. QED.

Bear in mind that both are always moving relative to each other

Overall conclusion
All three of these, physically distinguished scenarios will give rise to the observed relative motion between the observer and the treadmill; one of these scenarios is a logical necessity to account for the relative motion between the observer and the treadmill; each scenario implies absolute motion, therefore absolute motion is a logical necessity.

What you have done here is tendered three new scenarios that are physically distinguished. But in each, physically distinguished scenario, we can label the treadmill as stationary, the environment as stationary, or both as moving. So we have 9 scenarios in total now, 3 coordinate labels x 3 physical scenarios, and for any given scenario, we cannot deduce any statement about intrinsic motion. All you have done is hidden the problem behind a more convoluted thought experiment.

You also take issue with the use of hypothetical observers associated with the coordinate labels. Yet a coordinate system associated with a hypothetical observer says nothing about intrinsic motion of the hypothetical observer, for reasons I have presented before (and you presumably ignored). The reason, again, is a coordinate system implying a hypothetical observer is consistent with any metaphysical assertion you make about the intrinsic motion of that observer. Therefore, the coordinate system says nothing about the intrinsic motion of the hypothetical observer. Therefore, the coordinate system says nothing about the intrinsic motion of objects moving relative to the hypothetical observer.

You seem to have an odd habit of assuming that you have adequately addressed issues that you haven't. Any of the "corrections" you have proffered have been challenged; the challenge to that particular point is the question on the mysterious dynamics that cause stationary world tubes to give rise to relative motion. Your response to this is, as below, related to the kinematics of the system.

Your mistake is in assuming that this adequately addresses the issue.

"A well defined hyperbolic geometry" simply states what spacetime is; it doesn't explain how static world tubes give rise to relative motion.

Space, time and Einstein

Kinematics - wiki

A-level phyiscs - wikibooks

Saying what spacetime is doesn't address the question of how static world tubes give rise to relative motion; Kinematics is a description of motion, not an explanation as to what causes it.

So, in the absence of an explanation of the exceptionally mysterious dynamics, which outlines how static world tubes give rise to relative motion, we are left with a theory about relativity which not only can't account for the observation of relative motion, but logically should preclude it.

In the absence of an explanation of such dynamics, we are left with the logical necessity of absolute motion to account for relative motion.

You couldn't be missing the point more if you tried. To explain observations, we either postulate a) Hyperbolic geometry (a kinematic explanation) or b) Mysterious dynamics (a dynamical explanation). You can, of course, ask why the geometry is hyperbolic, as opposed to some other form, but the fact remains that we have a single, well defined postulate that explains observations. If we, instead, postulate dynamics, we need an army of assumptions that must accidentally, mysteriously all combine to give the illusion of a hyperbolic geometry.

What is frustrating is even proponents of Lorentzian relativity accept this. It makes your position sound absolutely ridiculous and ill-informed.

What is even more frustrating is I have explained all of this to you before.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Actually, you claimed "the depiction of the light clocks demonstrates the implicit assumption of absolute rest.", therefore the burden is on you to tender such a demonstration. So if you like, I can rephrase my "assertion" as a request: Please demonstrate intrinsic motion from the light-clock depictions.

And we can take that back up in the other thread.

Morbert wrote: »

What you have done here is tendered three new scenarios that are physically distinguished. But in each, physically distinguished scenario, we can label the treadmill as stationary, the environment as stationary, or both as moving. So we have 9 scenarios in total now, 3 coordinate labels x 3 physical scenarios, and for any given scenario, we cannot deduce any statement about intrinsic motion. All you have done is hidden the problem behind a more convoluted thought experiment.

A person walking on a treadmill which is either on or off; very convoluted indeed.

There are a number of issues with what you say; again, statements such as "the treadmill is stationary", "the environment is stationary" and "both are moving" are statements about the absolute nature of motion of the aforementioned objects.

When we consider the relative motion between the treadmill and the environment, we cannot say that "one is moving, while the other is stationary" because the treadmill and the environment are always moving relative to each other.

If we say it is relative to a non-physical, hypothetical observer then we are ascribing physical characteristics to something which is non physical. We can, though, make that hypothetical observer represent a physical observer; for example, an observer who is at rest relative to the environment; again, however, this doesn't resolve the issue, because that physical observer simply forms part of "the environment" which is deemed to either be "stationary" or "moving".

Again, these are statements about the absolute motion of the objects, because when considering the relative velocity of the two systems, both are always moving relative to each other; neither is stationary.

Morbert wrote: »

You also take issue with the use of hypothetical observers associated with the coordinate labels. Yet a coordinate system associated with a hypothetical observer says nothing about intrinsic motion of the hypothetical observer, for reasons I have presented before (and you presumably ignored). The reason, again, is a coordinate system implying a hypothetical observer is consistent with any metaphysical assertion you make about the intrinsic motion of that observer. Therefore, the coordinate system says nothing about the intrinsic motion of the hypothetical observer. Therefore, the coordinate system says nothing about the intrinsic motion of objects moving relative to the hypothetical observer.

The issue, as somewhat outlined above, is that by considering the motion of objects relative to a non-physical, hypothetical observer we are ascribing physical characteristics to something which is non-physical; it implies that mathematical co-ordinates exist a priori in nature; and it means that our use of reference frames don't accurately correspond to the physical world.

When we take the hypothetical observer correspond to the physical world, then the reference frames carry implicit assumptions about absolute motion and rest; because we label the observer as "stationary" when he/she is in fact moving relative to something. When we say that he/she is "stationary" relative to a non-physical, mathematical reference frame, we ascribe physical characteristics to something non-physical.

If we don't make the hypothetical observer correspond to the physical world, then the implications of absolute rest and motion do indeed disappear; but what we get instead are certain conclusions, namely reciprocal contractions, which don't correspond to the physical world, and are simply mathematical artefacts, like our hypothetical observer and his mathematical reference frame. This is because we consider the motion relative to something which is not physical, but mathematical.

Morbert wrote: »

You couldn't be missing the point more if you tried. To explain observations, we either postulate a) Hyperbolic geometry (a kinematic explanation) or b) Mysterious dynamics (a dynamical explanation). You can, of course, ask why the geometry is hyperbolic, as opposed to some other form, but the fact remains that we have a single, well defined postulate that explains observations. If we, instead, postulate dynamics, we need an army of assumptions that must accidentally, mysteriously all combine to give the illusion of a hyperbolic geometry.

What is frustrating is even proponents of Lorentzian relativity accept this. It makes your position sound absolutely ridiculous and ill-informed.

What is even more frustrating is I have explained all of this to you before.

What we have is an explanation of the observations which leads to the conclusion that objects exist as 4-Dimensional world tubes, in spacetime. Hyperbolic geometry explains why relatively moving objects would result in the given observations, it doesn't offer a "get-out-of-jail-free" card to explaining how relative motion arises from those 4-Dimensional world tubes in the first place.

Indeed, we could say that the kinematical explanation explains the observations, but we don't observe 4-Dimensional world tubes, or how those 4-Dimensional world tubes contrive to manifest as the relative motion we do observe; but this is an unavoidable aspect of the kinematical explanation.


The issue remains, that there must be something extremely mysterious at play to make the kineamtical explanation work; something exceptionally mysterious to make 4-Dimensional world tubes, which are at rest in spacetime, manifest as relative motion.

Without such an explanation, what we've got is a theory about relative motion, which can't account for relative motion.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

And we can take that back up in the other thread.

And in the other threads, you assume coordinate systems exist a priori in nature.

A person walking on a treadmill which is either on or off; very convoluted indeed.

There are a number of issues with what you say; again, statements such as "the treadmill is stationary", "the environment is stationary" and "both are moving" are statements about the absolute nature of motion of the aforementioned objects.

When we consider the relative motion between the treadmill and the environment, we cannot say that "one is moving, while the other is stationary" because the treadmill and the environment are always moving relative to each other.

If we say it is relative to a non-physical, hypothetical observer then we are ascribing physical characteristics to something which is non physical. We can, though, make that hypothetical observer represent a physical observer; for example, an observer who is at rest relative to the environment; again, however, this doesn't resolve the issue, because that physical observer simply forms part of "the environment" which is deemed to either be "stationary" or "moving".

Again, these are statements about the absolute motion of the objects, because when considering the relative velocity of the two systems, both are always moving relative to each other; neither is stationary.

The issue, as somewhat outlined above, is that by considering the motion of objects relative to a non-physical, hypothetical observer we are ascribing physical characteristics to something which is non-physical; it implies that mathematical co-ordinates exist a priori in nature; and it means that our use of reference frames don't accurately correspond to the physical world.

When we take the hypothetical observer correspond to the physical world, then the reference frames carry implicit assumptions about absolute motion and rest; because we label the observer as "stationary" when he/she is in fact moving relative to something. When we say that he/she is "stationary" relative to a non-physical, mathematical reference frame, we ascribe physical characteristics to something non-physical.

I have explained the principle of general covariance many times now. When we use a coordinate system to perform calculations, we calculate what would be observed by a hypothetical observer. I.e. We have a physical system, and we codify possible observations of that system. That is all we are doing. This absolutely does not assume the coordinate system exists a priori. That is the very premise of general covariance.

Also, you are again ignoring what I said. Any coordinate label is consistent with any metaphysical assumption you make about intrinsic motion of the physical system. If you want to be superfluous and irrelevant, and assume something is moving at 0.99999c, then any coordinate system I use won't make a difference, because a coordinate system, contrary to what you are repeating, makes no implicit assumptions.

If we don't make the hypothetical observer correspond to the physical world, then the implications of absolute rest and motion do indeed disappear; but what we get instead are certain conclusions, namely reciprocal contractions, which don't correspond to the physical world, and are simply mathematical artefacts, like our hypothetical observer and his mathematical reference frame. This is because we consider the motion relative to something which is not physical, but mathematical.

Wait, so are you saying you are willing to move the conversation forward, and agree with both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativists, and accept that, whatever you might think of the practise, Einstein's relativity operates under, and exists because of, the principle of general covariance? Before I discuss reciprocal contractions, can we agree on that much?

What we have is an explanation of the observations which leads to the conclusion that objects exist as 4-Dimensional world tubes, in spacetime. Hyperbolic geometry explains why relatively moving objects would result in the given observations, it doesn't offer a "get-out-of-jail-free" card to explaining how relative motion arises from those 4-Dimensional world tubes in the first place.

Indeed, we could say that the kinematical explanation explains the observations, but we don't observe 4-Dimensional world tubes, or how those 4-Dimensional world tubes contrive to manifest as the relative motion we do observe; but this is an unavoidable aspect of the kinematical explanation.


The issue remains, that there must be something extremely mysterious at play to make the kineamtical explanation work; something exceptionally mysterious to make 4-Dimensional world tubes, which are at rest in spacetime, manifest as relative motion.

Without such an explanation, what we've got is a theory about relative motion, which can't account for relative motion.

Then your definition of mysterious is what you, personally, are unfamiliar with. 4D spacetime has a clear, concise, well established, rigorous, precise description. Dynamical explanations do not. That is what is meant by mysterious.

But again, all that is relevant regarding this discussion is that, whatever you think about the postulates, to understand Maxwell's equations, we have to make some form of counter-intuitive postulate, whether it is the introduction of hyperbolic spacetime, or emergent, dynamical Lorentz invariance. You cannot accuse people being wrong for adopting the postulates of relativity, while you yourself adopt the at least (for the sake of discussion) equally counter-intuitive postulates of Lorentzian relativity.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

And in the other threads, you assume coordinate systems exist a priori in nature.



I have explained the principle of general covariance many times now. When we use a coordinate system to perform calculations, we calculate what would be observed by a hypothetical observer. I.e. We have a physical system, and we codify possible observations of that system. That is all we are doing. This absolutely does not assume the coordinate system exists a priori. That is the very premise of general covariance.

Also, you are again ignoring what I said. Any coordinate label is consistent with any metaphysical assumption you make about intrinsic motion of the physical system. If you want to be superfluous and irrelevant, and assume something is moving at 0.99999c, then any coordinate system I use won't make a difference, because a coordinate system, contrary to what you are repeating, makes no implicit assumptions.



Wait, so are you saying you are willing to move the conversation forward, and agree with both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativists, and accept that, whatever you might think of the practise, Einstein's relativity operates under, and exists because of, the principle of general covariance? Before I discuss reciprocal contractions, can we agree on that much?

We can probably make progress on two fronts. With regard to the points raised above, we can leave those to the thread intended to be a discussion on the implicit assumptions of Einsteinian co-ordinate labels

With regard to the deduction of absolute motion, from relative motion, the points raised about how the scenarios are just the same scenario labeled differently, under Einsteinian relativity, are not necessarily material.

Essentially, what we have, or rather what we should have, are two possible explanations for relative motion; the concept of absolute motion is one such explanation.

You're suggesting that Einsteinian relativity says that "the 3 scenarios" are just the same scenario labelled differently; that is fine, as Einsteinain relativity doesn't include the concept of absolute motion. Einsteinain relativity, however, leads to the conclusion that objects exist as absolute, and static, 4D worldtubes; what we don't have though is an explanation for how these world tubes manifest as the relative motion we observe.

That ER is a kinematical explanation of the observations doesn't mean that an explanation isn't required, it simply means that it doesn't give one.

Morbert wrote: »

Then your definition of mysterious is what you, personally, are unfamiliar with. 4D spacetime has a clear, concise, well established, rigorous, precise description. Dynamical explanations do not. That is what is meant by mysterious.

It isn't the idea that objects exist as 4D world tubes which is mysterious; indeed, I have an understanding of that, albeit a limited one. What is mysterious is how these world tubes manifest as the realtive motion that we observe.

What you have essentially done here, as you have done before, is stated that the idea, that objects exist as 4D world tubes, is clear, concise, well established, rigorous and precisely described; it's just a restatement of the idea that objects exist as 4D world tubes, and that this concept is well understood. That much isn't in question; what is in question is, how do these 4D world tubes manifest as the relative motion that we observe?

That is what is mysterious, because, logically they should actually preclude relative motion; unless there is something very mysterious which causes them to manifest as the relative motion we observe.

In the absense of such an explanation, the concept of absolute motion is a logical necessity to account for relative motion.

Morbert wrote: »

But again, all that is relevant regarding this discussion is that, whatever you think about the postulates, to understand Maxwell's equations, we have to make some form of counter-intuitive postulate, whether it is the introduction of hyperbolic spacetime, or emergent, dynamical Lorentz invariance. You cannot accuse people being wrong for adopting the postulates of relativity, while you yourself adopt the at least (for the sake of discussion) equally counter-intuitive postulates of Lorentzian relativity.

I'm not suggesting anyone is wrong for adopting the postulates of relativity; I think the manner in which it has come about is entirely understandable, I just think there are issues with it, in terms of the logic. As there appears to be with Lorentzian relativity.

In the context of this particular discussion though, we are looking to see what we can deduce from relative motion; the question appears to come down to either a) absolute motion; or b) 4D world tubes manifesting as relative motion.

The idea that absolute motion can give rise to relative motion makes perfect sense to me; how static 4D world tubes give rise to relative motion, doesn't.

Logically, an explanation is needed for the latter; or at least an alternative to absolute motion is required to imply that it isn't a logical necessity; stating that objects exist as 4D world tubes, and that this well understood, doesn't provide such an explanation.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

We can probably make progress on two fronts. With regard to the points raised above, we can leave those to the thread intended to be a discussion on the implicit assumptions of Einsteinian co-ordinate labels

With regard to the deduction of absolute motion, from relative motion, the points raised about how the scenarios are just the same scenario labeled differently, under Einsteinian relativity, are not necessarily material.

Essentially, what we have, or rather what we should have, are two possible explanations for relative motion; the concept of absolute motion is one such explanation.

You're suggesting that Einsteinian relativity says that "the 3 scenarios" are just the same scenario labelled differently; that is fine, as Einsteinain relativity doesn't include the concept of absolute motion. Einsteinain relativity, however, leads to the conclusion that objects exist as absolute, and static, 4D worldtubes; what we don't have though is an explanation for how these world tubes manifest as the relative motion we observe.

That ER is a kinematical explanation of the observations doesn't mean that an explanation isn't required, it simply means that it doesn't give one.

It isn't the idea that objects exist as 4D world tubes which is mysterious; indeed, I have an understanding of that, albeit a limited one. What is mysterious is how these world tubes manifest as the realtive motion that we observe.

What you have essentially done here, as you have done before, is stated that the idea, that objects exist as 4D world tubes, is clear, concise, well established, rigorous and precisely described; it's just a restatement of the idea that objects exist as 4D world tubes, and that this concept is well understood. That much isn't in question; what is in question is, how do these 4D world tubes manifest as the relative motion that we observe?

That is what is mysterious, because, logically they should actually preclude relative motion; unless there is something very mysterious which causes them to manifest as the relative motion we observe.

In the absense of such an explanation, the concept of absolute motion is a logical necessity to account for relative motion.

I'm not suggesting anyone is wrong for adopting the postulates of relativity; I think the manner in which it has come about is entirely understandable, I just think there are issues with it, in terms of the logic. As there appears to be with Lorentzian relativity.

In the context of this particular discussion though, we are looking to see what we can deduce from relative motion; the question appears to come down to either a) absolute motion; or b) 4D world tubes manifesting as relative motion.

The idea that absolute motion can give rise to relative motion makes perfect sense to me; how static 4D world tubes give rise to relative motion, doesn't.

Logically, an explanation is needed for the latter; or at least an alternative to absolute motion is required to imply that it isn't a logical necessity; stating that objects exist as 4D world tubes, and that this well understood, doesn't provide such an explanation.

Ok, it is good to see we can move on from the framework of relativity. As far as kinematic vs. dynamic interpretations go, I am not as compelled to argue over which metaphysical framework to adopt. I am most interested in how to most elegantly link postulates to observation, and both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativists agree that 4D spacetime is it, even if they disagree over the ontological status of spacetime.

I will only make a few extra comments. The worldlines of relativity aren't like snakes or tubes suspended in some block substance called spacetime. According to relativity what, is physical is the light-cone structure of events. They only exist insofar as all events exist.

As for the kinematics needing an explanation, that is true to a point. But it is also true for Newton mechanics, and technically Lorentzian relativity, which both suggest that kinematics are inherently Newtonian. So a way of phrasing it would be "ER suggests inherently hyperbolic Minkowski kinematics. LR suggests inherently Newtonian kinematics. The question of why kinematics should be inherently Newtonian or hyperbolic is not addressed by either".

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Ok, it is good to see we can move on from the framework of relativity.

I think we can separate it out from this line of discussion, but we can resume it in the thread on that topic.

Morbert wrote: »

As far as kinematic vs. dynamic interpretations go, I am not as compelled to argue over which metaphysical framework to adopt. I am most interested in how to most elegantly link postulates to observation, and both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativists agree that 4D spacetime is it, even if they disagree over the ontological status of spacetime.

I will only make a few extra comments. The worldlines of relativity aren't like snakes or tubes suspended in some block substance called spacetime. According to relativity what, is physical is the light-cone structure of events. They only exist insofar as all events exist.

As for the kinematics needing an explanation, that is true to a point. But it is also true for Newton mechanics, and technically Lorentzian relativity, which both suggest that kinematics are inherently Newtonian. So a way of phrasing it would be "ER suggests inherently hyperbolic Minkowski kinematics. LR suggests inherently Newtonian kinematics. The question of why kinematics should be inherently Newtonian or hyperbolic is not addressed by either".

I'm not sure the shape of the world tubes makes much difference; a conical world tube has the same issues. The question is still begged, how does the light-cone structure of events give rise to the relative motion that we obvserve, given that the past and future of light cones are extended eternally in spacetime?


With regard to the need for an explanation of the kinematics, it is probably worth highlighting that it isn't really necessary to explain why the kinematics is the way it is; what is necessary is an explanation for how relative motion manifests. Kinematics doesn't offer such an explanation. Taking all theories together, absolute motion can account for the observation of relative motion; in the absence of an alternative explanation for the cause of relative motion, it would certainly seem that absolute motion is a logical necessity.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

I think we can separate it out from this line of discussion, but we can resume it in the thread on that topic.



I'm not sure the shape of the world tubes makes much difference; a conical world tube has the same issues. The question is still begged, how does the light-cone structure of events give rise to the relative motion that we obvserve, given that the past and future of light cones are extended eternally in spacetime?

With regard to the need for an explanation of the kinematics, it is probably worth highlighting that it isn't really necessary to explain why the kinematics is the way it is; what is necessary is an explanation for how relative motion manifests. Kinematics doesn't offer such an explanation. Taking all theories together, absolute motion can account for the observation of relative motion; in the absence of an alternative explanation for the cause of relative motion, it would certainly seem that absolute motion is a logical necessity.

You will have to explicitly state the problem you have. I see no issue with the relation between our observations of relative motion, and the 4D structure of spacetime. One does not "give rise" to the other.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

You will have to explicitly state the problem you have. I see no issue with the relation between our observations of relative motion, and the 4D structure of spacetime. One does not "give rise" to the other.

The issue isn't the relation between the observations of relative motion and the 4D structure of spacetime; the issue is the cause of relative motion; the kinematical model, which is the 4D structure of spacetime, doesn't provide such an explanation. Given relative motion, and certain other assumptions, the 4D structure of spacetime is the conclusion.

This conclusion, however, necessitates that objects exist as world tubes in spacetime; the question which arises from this is, how do those world tubes, which are static in spacetime, manifest as the relative motion we observe, when, logically speaking, they should preclude the manifestation of relative motion.

This represents a pretty fundamental assumption, and requires a very exotic explanation, which doesn't appear to exist. In the absence of such an explanation we are left with a theory about relative motion which, not only can't account for relative motion, but should actually preclude it's manifestation.


The absence of such an explanation would also mean that absolute motion is a logical necessity to account for relative motion. Indeed, even in the advent of such an explanation, occams razor might favour absolute motion anyway.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

The issue isn't the relation between the observations of relative motion and the 4D structure of spacetime; the issue is the cause of relative motion; the kinematical model, which is the 4D structure of spacetime, doesn't provide such an explanation. Given relative motion, and certain other assumptions, the 4D structure of spacetime is the conclusion.

This conclusion, however, necessitates that objects exist as world tubes in spacetime; the question which arises from this is, how do those world tubes, which are static in spacetime, manifest as the relative motion we observe, when, logically speaking, they should preclude the manifestation of relative motion.

This represents a pretty fundamental assumption, and requires a very exotic explanation, which doesn't appear to exist. In the absence of such an explanation we are left with a theory about relative motion which, not only can't account for relative motion, but should actually preclude it's manifestation.


The absence of such an explanation would also mean that absolute motion is a logical necessity to account for relative motion. Indeed, even in the advent of such an explanation, occams razor might favour absolute motion anyway.

In other words, you are asking why our experience is temporal and sequential, when world lines are atemporal. This is no more mysterious than not experiencing the thoughts of an identical twin. It is to do with the identification of the self. For any given moment of observation or thought, you are distinct from the rest of your history, even though your history is physical. The event of you reading this is distinct from the event of you replying, hence each event is a distinct experience not shared by the other.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

In other words, you are asking why our experience is temporal and sequential, when world lines are atemporal. This is no more mysterious than not experiencing the thoughts of an identical twin. It is to do with the identification of the self. For any given moment of observation or thought, you are distinct from the rest of your history, even though your history is physical. The event of you reading this is distinct from the event of you replying, hence each event is a distinct experience not shared by the other.

Firstly, this doesn't explain how static world tubes manifest as the relative motion we observe. Secondly, it simply highlights another aspect of the theory that requires an exotic explanation - although I would imagine that the same exotic explanation would cover both.


It's probably worth highlighting that the two scenarios aren't analagous, because, of course, we do experience the thoughts of the "identical twin" i.e. the thoughts of our former self, and future self; I experienced the thoughts of my 8yr old self, and every manifestation of myself in between.

We can also offer an explanation, in terms of world tubes, for why we don't experience the thoughts of an identical twin; we can say it's due to the fact that the world tubes are spatially separated i.e. they are separate world tubes; but this doesn't explain how both twins experience an ever changing present moment.

We can take it as an explanation for how we don't experience the thoughts of our future and former selves, but that much isn't in question. What is required, in addition to how static world tubes manifest as relative motion, is how there is this experience of growing older, of transitioning from moment to moment, when all moment, supposedly co-exist. It requires an explanation for how my 8yr old self experienced the transition to the age I am now, while eternally remaining 8yrs old; how do we transition from moment to moment along our world tubes, while not transitioning from moment to moment i.e. when all moments co-exist eternally?

It might be easier to try and put into words using the redundant concept on which it is based; the theory requires an explanation of how time is experienced as passing, while time doesn't pass.


Summary
So what we now require are the following explanations (although one might cover both):
- How do static world tubes manifest as relative motion
- How is time experienced as passing, while also remaining static.


To many these would just appear to be paradoxes, inherent in the theory.

Morbert

Summary
So what we now require are the following explanations (although one might cover both):
- How do static world tubes manifest as relative motion
- How is time experienced as passing, while also remaining static.


To many these would just appear to be paradoxes, inherent in the theory.

Again (and again), you are not posing your questions rigorously. I have no idea what you mean by "manifest". Nothing manifests. There are only representations. So the first question can be dismissed out of hand.

I have answered the second question in my previous post.

roosh wrote:

It's probably worth highlighting that the two scenarios aren't analagous, because, of course, we do experience the thoughts of the "identical twin" i.e. the thoughts of our former self, and future self; I experienced the thoughts of my 8yr old self, and every manifestation of myself in between.

No we don't. The thoughts of your 8-year old self might have a causal relationship with you insofar as their thoughts caused your memories, but you are not experiencing your 8th birthday, for example.

We can also offer an explanation, in terms of world tubes, for why we don't experience the thoughts of an identical twin; we can say it's due to the fact that the world tubes are spatially separated i.e. they are separate world tubes; but this doesn't explain how both twins experience an ever changing present moment.

And thought events are temporally separated. The event of experiencing your 8th birthday is temporally separated from the event of experiencing your 80th.

We can take it as an explanation for how we don't experience the thoughts of our future and former selves, but that much isn't in question. What is required, in addition to how static world tubes manifest as relative motion, is how there is this experience of growing older, of transitioning from moment to moment, when all moment, supposedly co-exist. It requires an explanation for how my 8yr old self experienced the transition to the age I am now, while eternally remaining 8yrs old; how do we transition from moment to moment along our world tubes, while not transitioning from moment to moment i.e. when all moments co-exist eternally?

Your 8-year old self isn't experiencing any transition. For example, in one reference frame, the present has your 8th birthday. In another reference frame, the present has you asking why you're not still experiencing your 8th birthday. You are implicitly assuming consciousness must have some transcendental 4D experience, when really thought, like anything else, is just an event. It is no more mysterious than the world line of an electron.

It might be easier to try and put into words using the redundant concept on which it is based; the theory requires an explanation of how time is experienced as passing, while time doesn't pass.

The experience of the passing of time is due to the behaviour of entropy. If the 2nd law of thermodynamics was locally reversed somehow, you would experience time passing in the opposite direction.

Masteroid

Morbert wrote: »

The experience of the passing of time is due to the behaviour of entropy. If the 2nd law of thermodynamics was locally reversed somehow, you would experience time passing in the opposite direction.

Really? Are you saying that we would get younger rather than older? That what we perceive as 'effects' in this universe would be perceived as 'causes' in an area where the 2nd law was reversed?

This would require a physics that could account for, for example, how thoughts could spontaneously appear in the mind giving rise to neural responses that cause the hammer in the ear to vibrate against the timpanic membrane resulting in the generation of a pressure wave which increases in intensity as it travels until it arrives at a vocal chord which transduces the wave into a neural impulse in a process that causes the loss of knowledge.

Surely you don't suppose that a reversal in the direction of time would result in the creation of the past?

In terms of determinism though, or 'presentism', if you will, even if the 2nd law were reversed, the direction of time would be unaffected, i.e. change would take place as a result of deterministic processes.

And don't forget that in the event that the 2nd law was reversed then my digital watch would not start counting backwards, it would stop working altogether. This might be considered trivial when it is realised that the mechanisms that give rise to the beating heart wouldn't work either. No, if the 2nd law were reversed, we wouldn't get younger, we would die horribly as existence as we know it decomposes into energy and through deterministic processes reorganises and evolves new structures which are under the constraints of deductable laws of physics.

And change continues to take place.

Anyway, if the 2nd law were reversed, wouldn't the universe be contracting and isn't there a coordinate system which can treat the universe as being a process of condensation and that could be reconciled with observation?

In other words, doesn't the 2nd law demand certain phyical laws? Isn't it the case that by treating certain laws of physics as being absolute we have forced modern physics upon ourselves? Aren't we guilty of making the 'questions' fit the 'answers'? ER is so elegant it must mean something, right?

Until it's wrong.

But I digress. My point is that the 2nd law, reversed or not, intrinsically implies a 'directional' component to all energy which gives rise to motion. Matter is composed of energy which means that no electron, proton or neutron continuously occupies the same space. Not a single photon does. Nothing is still. To exist is to be in motion. So isn't it safe to assume that there is no absolute rest as that would mean 'non-existence'?

Although ER and LR 'get around' the problem of absolute rest versus absolute motion by not addressing it, a complete physical theory cannot.

But we can ask, What does it mean to be at absolute rest, can't we? We can imagine an object, a piece of apparatus perhaps, as continually occupying the same space, motionless, with all motion being relative to it. We can then say that any other object that is motionless relative to that apparatus is also at absolute rest. We can try to arrange the whole universe in a static configuration, no relative motion, absolute rest but before long things like gravity and the expansion of space begin to introduce relative motion.

Surely physics can discount the notion of absolute rest and therefore assume absolute motion even though ER or LR can make predictions that are not dependent on such an assumption?

citrus burst

Masteroid wrote: »

Really? Are you saying that we would get younger rather than older? That what we perceive as 'effects' in this universe would be perceived as 'causes' in an area where the 2nd law was reversed?

This would require a physics that could account for, for example, how thoughts could spontaneously appear in the mind giving rise to neural responses that cause the hammer in the ear to vibrate against the timpanic membrane resulting in the generation of a pressure wave which increases in intensity as it travels until it arrives at a vocal chord which transduces the wave into a neural impulse in a process that causes the loss of knowledge.

Surely you don't suppose that a reversal in the direction of time would result in the creation of the past?

In terms of determinism though, or 'presentism', if you will, even if the 2nd law were reversed, the direction of time would be unaffected, i.e. change would take place as a result of deterministic processes.

And don't forget that in the event that the 2nd law was reversed then my digital watch would not start counting backwards, it would stop working altogether. This might be considered trivial when it is realised that the mechanisms that give rise to the beating heart wouldn't work either. No, if the 2nd law were reversed, we wouldn't get younger, we would die horribly as existence as we know it decomposes into energy and through deterministic processes reorganises and evolves new structures which are under the constraints of deductable laws of physics.

And change continues to take place.

Anyway, if the 2nd law were reversed, wouldn't the universe be contracting and isn't there a coordinate system which can treat the universe as being a process of condensation and that could be reconciled with observation?

So we agree, time moves "forward."

Masteroid wrote: »

In other words, doesn't the 2nd law demand certain phyical laws? Isn't it the case that by treating certain laws of physics as being absolute we have forced modern physics upon ourselves? Aren't we guilty of making the 'questions' fit the 'answers'? ER is so elegant it must mean something, right?

You could say that, but its hard to say otherwise when you sit in a lab and those things we "force" upon ourselves, pop right out, just as the thing we "forced" upon ourselves says.

Masteroid wrote: »

Until it's wrong.

I agree.

Masteroid wrote: »

But I digress. My point is that the 2nd law, reversed or not, intrinsically implies a 'directional' component to all energy which gives rise to motion.

I agree, "time has a direction"

Masteroid wrote: »

Matter is composed of energy which means that no electron, proton or neutron continuously occupies the same space. Not a single photon does. Nothing is still. To exist is to be in motion. So isn't it safe to assume that there is no absolute rest as that would mean 'non-existence'?

This I do not agree with, but this is a thread about absolute motion.

Masteroid wrote: »

Although ER and LR 'get around' the problem of absolute rest versus absolute motion by not addressing it, a complete physical theory cannot.

I think you'll find ER "gets around" the problem of absolute rest and absolute motion very clearly, by assuming that all reference frames are the same.

Masteroid wrote: »

But we can ask, What does it mean to be at absolute rest, can't we? We can imagine an object, a piece of apparatus perhaps, as continually occupying the same space, motionless, with all motion being relative to it. We can then say that any other object that is motionless relative to that apparatus is also at absolute rest. We can try to arrange the whole universe in a static configuration, no relative motion, absolute rest but before long things like gravity and the expansion of space begin to introduce relative motion.

Yep, we've done this for about 4 and a half billion years. We call it Earth.

Masteroid wrote: »

Surely physics can discount the notion of absolute rest and therefore assume absolute motion even though ER or LR can make predictions that are not dependent on such an assumption?

Albert did it in one fell swoop when he decided to make a theory with two assumptions; the speed of light is the same for everything and all reference frames are equal, or in other words, no reference frame is special.
By the second assumption, it would rule out both absolute rest and absolute motion.

I have no idea where this thread (and all the others) is going any more. To me it appears that the whole issue of absolute motion has become lost in translation. Some believe it means that something "must" move, some believe that it means that everything "must" move and others believe that it cannot be possible.

For me, the issue is the word "absolute." Its one of those words that has a different meaning in science/maths and every day life. If you told your friend you were absolutely freezing, they would have no problem understanding you were cold. If you tried to submit a science paper that said "we measured the force to be absolutely 4.32 N" you wouldn't get very far. There are only two occasions in science that I know that use the word absolute; absolute zero and the absolute magnitude of a stars brightness.

Any way, whatever your interpretation of absolute is, there is no point in arguing it, unless the other party understands what you're talking about. For me absolute motion is logically the exact same as absolute rest. There is no difference between the two. Both are "special" reference frames, that can be reduced to mean the same thing. If you're going to have a frame thats always moving, no matter where you are or what you're doing, why not call that zero and label everything according to that "special" thing. But that's just relative.

Another interpretation could be that absolute motion means everything moves. Its the complete opposite to absolute rest, that says nothing moves.

So what do you mean?......

The penalty spot observed Fabregas move towards it and the ball away from it. The post observed Fabregas and the ball move towards it. The blade of grass in between observed the ball move towards it and then away from it. The ball observed Fabregas and the post to move towards it. Who is right?

Masteroid

citrus burst wrote: »

So we agree, time moves "forward."

You could say that, but its hard to say otherwise when you sit in a lab and those things we "force" upon ourselves, pop right out, just as the thing we "forced" upon ourselves says.

Not really as I see the universe as being in a kind of flux, continuously changing through deterministic processes, new outcomes being constantly generated. These processes do not have a relationship with any real thing called 'time', they occur where forces come into contact with each other affecting change.

The thing is, without motion there can be no determinism and without determinism, there is no universe.

The 2nd LoT implicitly hints at a gradient along which change can occur and we shouldn't be surprised really when we consider the other option. If energy travelled from hot to hotter rather than from hot to colder then there would have been no big bang. If all energy originated from the same point then how could expansion have taken place if the 2nd law were reversed? How did energy come to be so spread out?

So, understandably, physics chose the 'hot to cold' option and this 'forced' us to think of energy in terms of 'stuff that exists'. But what would have happened if physics chose option 'b', 'hot to hotter'?

If the second law were treated as being reversed then since science has to reflect the observable universe, we would have to consider energy differently. We would have to consider that we were in a contracting universe, that 'empty space' is actually a plasma of almost homogenous energy at some theoretical maximum temperature and that 'energy' is representative of 'cooler' areas within this plasma. We could then proceed to deduce a set of physical laws which explain the observable universe in terms that do not violate a reversed 2nd law. There could even be a version of ER that could be formulated and Maxwell's equations might even make more sense.

My point is, that to some extent, it is possible to make the observations fit the science.

citrus burst wrote: »

I agree, "time has a direction"

I wouldn't say 'time has a direction', I would say that change occurs (deterministically) along an energy gradient. Change actually happens, time does not. The notion of time provides us with a counting tool by way of which we can make useful data that relates events in processes of change. The concept of time allows us to analyse and forecast deterministic events.

citrus burst wrote: »

I think you'll find ER "gets around" the problem of absolute rest and absolute motion very clearly, by assuming that all reference frames are the same.

I think it is more accurate to say that ER renders the question of absolute rest and absolute motion as academic.

citrus burst wrote: »

Yep, we've done this for about 4 and a half billion years. We call it Earth.

Yes, and by treating earth as being at rest we attributed some very strange motions to the planets for hundreds of years. Perhaps, on some scale, the question of absolute motion may become important.

citrus burst wrote: »

Albert did it in one fell swoop when he decided to make a theory with two assumptions; the speed of light is the same for everything and all reference frames are equal, or in other words, no reference frame is special.

By the second assumption, it would rule out both absolute rest and absolute motion.

I have no idea where this thread (and all the others) is going any more. To me it appears that the whole issue of absolute motion has become lost in translation. Some believe it means that something "must" move, some believe that it means that everything "must" move and others believe that it cannot be possible.

For me, the issue is the word "absolute." Its one of those words that has a different meaning in science/maths and every day life. If you told your friend you were absolutely freezing, they would have no problem understanding you were cold. If you tried to submit a science paper that said "we measured the force to be absolutely 4.32 N" you wouldn't get very far. There are only two occasions in science that I know that use the word absolute; absolute zero and the absolute magnitude of a stars brightness.

Any way, whatever your interpretation of absolute is, there is no point in arguing it, unless the other party understands what you're talking about. For me absolute motion is logically the exact same as absolute rest. There is no difference between the two. Both are "special" reference frames, that can be reduced to mean the same thing. If you're going to have a frame thats always moving, no matter where you are or what you're doing, why not call that zero and label everything according to that "special" thing. But that's just relative.

Another interpretation could be that absolute motion means everything moves. Its the complete opposite to absolute rest, that says nothing moves.

So what do you mean?......

Well, for me, to be at absolute rest means 'to continuously occupy a point in space'. And the smaller the scale at which an object is observed, the less it appears to continuously occupy the same space and at a sub-atomic level, 'static' and 'stationary' become meaningless.

I think that the universe exists as a result of motion and motion is the result of heat. Only that which is truly void can be without motion. To be without motion is to be frozen. So absolute rest and absolute zero have a relationship in my mind. Zero energy equals zero matter - How can anything that can be said to exist be at absolute rest?

citrus burst wrote: »

The penalty spot observed Fabregas move towards it and the ball away from it. The post observed Fabregas and the ball move towards it. The blade of grass in between observed the ball move towards it and then away from it. The ball observed Fabregas and the post to move towards it. Who is right?

They are all correct except for the ball who is wrong. The post does not move.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Again (and again), you are not posing your questions rigorously. I have no idea what you mean by "manifest". Nothing manifests. There are only representations. So the first question can be dismissed out of hand.

I have answered the second question in my previous post.

I'll address the claim that the second question has been answered, below.

Firslty though, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "there are only representations"; however, that isn't grounds to dismiss it out of hand; I have an idea what you mean, but I'm sure once you calrify what you mean, we can discuss it a little further.

As for the term "manifest" or "manifestation", what is meant is as follows: you have stated that all objects exist as 4D world tubes, however, to us, objects don't appear as 4D world tubes. If you take an orange for example, when you pick up an orange, you don't see a 4D world tube extended through spacetime, you see a 3D object existing in a present moment; this means that the, supposed, 4D world tubes manifest as 3D objects i.e. that is what we observe.

Now, if we take objects which are moving relative to each other; these are, supposedly, static 4D world tubes, with angular orientation to each other, extended through spacetime; but, again, we do not observe static 4D world tubes with angular orientation, we observe 3D objects moving relative to each other; so we can say that these, supposed, 4D world tubes, with angular orientation manifest as 3D objects moving relative to each other i.e. what we observe is 3D objects, in the present moment, moving relative to each other.

The question is, how do these static, 4D world tubes manifest as relative motion; or, how do these static, 4D world tubes lead to us observing relative motion.

Morbert wrote: »

No we don't. The thoughts of your 8-year old self might have a causal relationship with you insofar as their thoughts caused your memories, but you are not experiencing your 8th birthday, for example.

I am not experiencing my 8th birthday now, but I did experience it; unlike the thoughts of an identical twin which I would never experience, and whose thoughts would not have a causal relationship with me; so the two scenarios aren't really analogous; but as mentioned, as an explanation, it doesn't address the issue.

Morbert wrote: »

And thought events are temporally separated. The event of experiencing your 8th birthday is temporally separated from the event of experiencing your 80th.

Yes, and this might explain why we don't experience the thoughts of our past and future selves, but it doesn't address the two issues; the clue is in your formulation of the analogy; "it is no more mysterious than why we don't experience the thoughts of an identical twin". What it doesn't do, is explain how static, unchanging world tubes cause us to experience an ever changing present moment; and it doesn't explain how static world tubes give rise to the observation of relative motion.

What you have done here, as you have been doing, is simply offer a little more detail on the structure of spacetime i.e. you're describing what spacetime is and how objects supposedly exist in spacetime; you're effectively just filling in a few details on the statement "objects exist as 4D world tubes", without addressing the questions of how do these static world tubes give rise to the scientific observations, which have lead to the conclusion that objects exist as 4D world tubes. Which is an important issue, because logically speaking, the spacetime interpretation should preclude observations such as relative motion, unless there is an exotic explanation to the contrary.

Morbert wrote: »

Your 8-year old self isn't experiencing any transition. For example, in one reference frame, the present has your 8th birthday. In another reference frame, the present has you asking why you're not still experiencing your 8th birthday. You are implicitly assuming consciousness must have some transcendental 4D experience, when really thought, like anything else, is just an event. It is no more mysterious than the world line of an electron.

Interestingly, I'm not the one who requires assumptions about transcendental conscious experience.

My experience of life to date and, I think it's pretty safe to say, everyone's experience of life to date, is of an ever changing present moment; the majority of people, I believe, experience themselves growing older; I experienced my 8th birthday and the transition to the age I am now.

How is it that I experienced growing older if my 8yr old self still exists; why didn't my 8yr old self grow older at the same rate that I did, oror experience the transition to the age I am now; or, why didn't I remain 8yrs old. How has my conscious experience been of an ever changing present moment, where I gradually grow older, while my 8yr old self, supposedly, consciously experiences being 8yrs old and also growing older just as I did; while his 8yr old self co-exists with his aging self.

The explanation that is required, effectively has to address how I experienced growing older, from my 8th birthday (for the sake of discussion) to the age I am now, while my 8yr old self continued to exist as 8yrs old and, presumably had/is having the same conscious experiences I had while growing older, while his 8yr old self co-exists with his aging self and experiences growing older, while his 8yr old self co-exists......and so on ad infinitum.

In short, how do unchanging world tubes give rise to the experience and observation of change?

Also, how do static world tubes give rise to the observation of relative motion?

Morbert wrote: »

The experience of the passing of time is due to the behaviour of entropy. If the 2nd law of thermodynamics was locally reversed somehow, you would experience time passing in the opposite direction.

This just gives rise to the same questions as before; it's the observation of change and motion within systems which lead us to the conclusion of entropy; the question is, how do static, unchanging world tubes give rise to the observations of motion and change?

Masteroid

roosh wrote: »

I'll address the claim that the second question has been answered, below.

Firslty though, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "there are only representations"; however, that isn't grounds to dismiss it out of hand; I have an idea what you mean, but I'm sure once you calrify what you mean, we can discuss it a little further.

As for the term "manifest" or "manifestation", what is meant is as follows: you have stated that all objects exist as 4D world tubes, however, to us, objects don't appear as 4D world tubes. If you take an orange for example, when you pick up an orange, you don't see a 4D world tube extended through spacetime, you see a 3D object existing in a present moment; this means that the, supposed, 4D world tubes manifest as 3D objects i.e. that is what we observe.

I think that Morbert is saying that 'world-lines' are no more manifest in reality than are the latitudinal or longitudinal lines on an Ordnance Survey map.

roosh wrote: »

I am not experiencing my 8th birthday now, but I did experience it; unlike the thoughts of an identical twin which I would never experience, and whose thoughts would not have a causal relationship with me; so the two scenarios aren't really analogous; but as mentioned, as an explanation, it doesn't address the issue.

This is more evidence of a deterministic universe.

There are two types of 'experience', direct and indirect. All the participants of your eighth-birthday party has a causal relationship with the events that actually took place there and thusly, directly experienced the party. Even a relative in Australia who failed to make it to your party can directly experience it if they make a telephone call or were able to establish a video link in real time and in that way, they too can have a causal relationship with the events that take place at the party.

If a video had been taken of the party and then shown to non-participants of the party a week later, say, then the events of the party can have a causal relationship with the viewer but the viewer has no causal relationship with the events of the party as depicted by the video. The viewer of the video indirectly experiences the party.

So, two types of experience, two types of communication. Direct experience involves 'two-way' communication and indirect experience involves 'one-way' communication.

When you experienced your party, your party experienced you but when someone thirty light-years away experiences your party, your party does not experience them.

It is interesting to note that two-way communication is what constitutes the present, where effects can influence causes, and one-way communication enables the past to have a causal effect on the future. But there is no way that the future can have a causal relationship with the past. Also, any effect that the past may have on the future can only be manifest in some other present.

If we were to define your party as a set of events that took place over a four-hour period and represent that period as a point on a graph, then by extending a line from that point with a length that represents two light-hours, we can say that that line represents all the possible events that can interact with the party in a two-way communication, all the possible events in the present that can have a causal effect on the party. This line represents all the possible events that can be directly experienced by the party in a two-way communication.

But this line does not represent the entire history of the party. There are other events that took place in the past that had a causal effect on the party. The shopping trip to buy the cake for example. The blowing out of candles and cutting of cake depended on that shopping trip but the cutting of the cake has no causal relationship with the shopping trip. One-way communication.

So, a complete history of the party would require a second, different line that extends into the past that represents all the possible events that have already occurred that can have a causal effect on the party. This line would include events that occurred thirty years before and thirty light-years away as well as shopping trips for cake and some (hopefully) cool toys.

Simplistic I know but it does show how static models can represent dynamical systems with no onus on the model to explain the dynamic nature of what is being represented.

'Now' is an emergent property of energy dissipation, communication of forces. There is no past or future, both are simply alternative configurations of now.

And it is only during energy dissipation that change occurs.

roosh

citrus burst wrote: »

So we agree, time moves "forward."

Personally I would say that "time" doesn't move forward at all; what we have is an ever changing present moment; but for the sake of discussion we can talk about the purely abstract concept of time and say that "time moves forward"; the question which arises from the spacetime interpretation is, how does time move forward when time doesn't move forward but all moments of time co-exist eternally?

citrus burst wrote: »

Albert did it in one fell swoop when he decided to make a theory with two assumptions; the speed of light is the same for everything and all reference frames are equal, or in other words, no reference frame is special.
By the second assumption, it would rule out both absolute rest and absolute motion.

I have no idea where this thread (and all the others) is going any more. To me it appears that the whole issue of absolute motion has become lost in translation. Some believe it means that something "must" move, some believe that it means that everything "must" move and others believe that it cannot be possible.

For me, the issue is the word "absolute." Its one of those words that has a different meaning in science/maths and every day life. If you told your friend you were absolutely freezing, they would have no problem understanding you were cold. If you tried to submit a science paper that said "we measured the force to be absolutely 4.32 N" you wouldn't get very far. There are only two occasions in science that I know that use the word absolute; absolute zero and the absolute magnitude of a stars brightness.

Any way, whatever your interpretation of absolute is, there is no point in arguing it, unless the other party understands what you're talking about. For me absolute motion is logically the exact same as absolute rest. There is no difference between the two. Both are "special" reference frames, that can be reduced to mean the same thing. If you're going to have a frame thats always moving, no matter where you are or what you're doing, why not call that zero and label everything according to that "special" thing. But that's just relative.

Another interpretation could be that absolute motion means everything moves. Its the complete opposite to absolute rest, that says nothing moves.

So what do you mean?......

I would be inclined to agree, that the issue lies in the term "absolute", or more precisely in the historical interpretation of "absolute motion"; this historical interpretation sought to define absolute motion as motion relative to an absolute reference frame, but such a definition is a contradiction in terms because it defines absolute motion as being relative motion.

The conceptualisation of absolute motion being proffered is not difficult to understand at all, in fact, the issue is that is probably too simple that people have a natural tendency to over-complicate it. The term "absolute" basically means "a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things". The former part of that definition is too close to the idea of "consensus" to be taken in conjunction with the latter part of the definition; but the latter part can be such that it agrees with the former, so it is probably more prudent to take the latter as being the strictest form.

Essentially, the term absolute refers to "which may be viewed without relation to other things"; so absolute motion is an aspect of motion which is not expressed in relative terms.

Again, it is a very simple idea; it's the simple idea of an object being capable of moving, a human being being capable of movement, or any mobile object being capable of movement. It is a simple "yes or no", "either, or" question; "did X move?", "did Y move?", "did X or Y move?".

Imagine standing face to face with a friend, and then something occurs so that ye are no longer face to face, but two steps to the side of each other; a reasonable question to ask is "who moved?". It is a very, very simple idea. While, technically, you both moved relative to each other, one of the two of you has to instigate the movement, one of you has to actually move so that you will no longer be face to face. It is really, incredibly simple and something I think people generally have no problem with, until they start to over-complicate it with learned responses to the question.

citrus burst wrote: »

The penalty spot observed Fabregas move towards it and the ball away from it. The post observed Fabregas and the ball move towards it. The blade of grass in between observed the ball move towards it and then away from it. The ball observed Fabregas and the post to move towards it. Who is right?

The point being made is that it doesn't matter who is right, and we don't even need to be able to determine who was right, because we can deduce that one of them has to be. While Fabregas and the penalty spot moved relative to each other, either Fabregas or the penalty spot had to actually move in order for them to move relative to each other. If neither actually moved then there would have been no relative motion to speak of.

A possibility that appears to get overlooked with relativity is the distinct, and arguably most reasonable, possibility that both Fabregas and the penalty spot are actually moving through the galaxy, by virtue of being on the earth; both start off at rest relative to each other and the earth, but then one of them subsequently moves along the surface of the earth to give rise to the relative motion between the two of them. My money there is on Fabregas.

Again, technically we can say that both Fabregas and the penalty spot moved relative to each other, but one of them has to subsequently move, in an absolute sense, to cause the relative motion between. If they don't, then there is no relative motion to speak of.


Again, consider yourself and a friend some distance apart; you are standing at the gate of your house, at rest relative to the gate and your friend is a distance down the road, walking towards you. Again, you might technically say that you are both moving relative to each other, but I'm sure both of you would agree that it is your friend that is doing the moving which causes the distance between you to reduce.

It is the very simple, and common, idea of your friend is moving towards you, as opposed to you, your gate, your house, the entire earth, moving towards your friend; that is, while all of you might be actually be moving through the universe by piggybacking on the earth, your friend is subsequently, and actually moving again, along the surface of the earth.

roosh

Masteroid wrote: »

I think that Morbert is saying that 'world-lines' are no more manifest in reality than are the latitudinal or longitudinal lines on an Ordnance Survey map.

Worldlines on a spacetime diagram may not be manifest in reality, but the world tubes, which he stated objects exist as, are given ontological status in the spacetime interpretation, or block universe; they have to be, if events in my past are to co-exist with my present and future events; for my 8yr old self to co-exist with my current self (in spacetime), as opposed to light from my 8th birthday not having reached a distant observer until now, world tubes - the supposed ontological nature of objects - must be manifest in reality.

Masteroid wrote: »

This is more evidence of a deterministic universe.

There are two types of 'experience', direct and indirect. All the participants of your eighth-birthday party has a causal relationship with the events that actually took place there and thusly, directly experienced the party. Even a relative in Australia who failed to make it to your party can directly experience it if they make a telephone call or were able to establish a video link in real time and in that way, they too can have a causal relationship with the events that take place at the party.

If a video had been taken of the party and then shown to non-participants of the party a week later, say, then the events of the party can have a causal relationship with the viewer but the viewer has no causal relationship with the events of the party as depicted by the video. The viewer of the video indirectly experiences the party.

So, two types of experience, two types of communication. Direct experience involves 'two-way' communication and indirect experience involves 'one-way' communication.

When you experienced your party, your party experienced you but when someone thirty light-years away experiences your party, your party does not experience them.

It is interesting to note that two-way communication is what constitutes the present, where effects can influence causes, and one-way communication enables the past to have a causal effect on the future. But there is no way that the future can have a causal relationship with the past. Also, any effect that the past may have on the future can only be manifest in some other present.

If we were to define your party as a set of events that took place over a four-hour period and represent that period as a point on a graph, then by extending a line from that point with a length that represents two light-hours, we can say that that line represents all the possible events that can interact with the party in a two-way communication, all the possible events in the present that can have a causal effect on the party. This line represents all the possible events that can be directly experienced by the party in a two-way communication.

But this line does not represent the entire history of the party. There are other events that took place in the past that had a causal effect on the party. The shopping trip to buy the cake for example. The blowing out of candles and cutting of cake depended on that shopping trip but the cutting of the cake has no causal relationship with the shopping trip. One-way communication.

So, a complete history of the party would require a second, different line that extends into the past that represents all the possible events that have already occurred that can have a causal effect on the party. This line would include events that occurred thirty years before and thirty light-years away as well as shopping trips for cake and some (hopefully) cool toys.

Simplistic I know but it does show how static models can represent dynamical systems with no onus on the model to explain the dynamic nature of what is being represented.

'Now' is an emergent property of energy dissipation, communication of forces. There is no past or future, both are simply alternative configurations of now.

And it is only during energy dissipation that change occurs.

The issue
Thanks for the detailed reply masteroid; I understand the points you are making, but the causal relationship between events isn't the issue in question. The basic question is, what causes relative motion? I am suggesting that only absolute motion can account for relative motion.

The spacetime interpretation of relativity, as mentioned, does give ontological status to world tubes, as it must, if the past and future are to co-exist with the present.

If relativity were simply a model about the causal relationship between events, then there would be no question as to how world tubes give rise to relative motion, or how unchanging world tubes manifest as an ever changing present moment; the question of what causes relative motion, other than absolute motion, would still remain, however.

Of course, the spacetime interpretation of relativity does give ontological status to past and future events, which of course runs contrary to the most basic of empirical observations. For that reason the question is, how do these world tubes give rise to the observation of relative motion when, logically, they should preclude the observation of relative motion? Also, how do unchanging world tubes give rise to the observation of change, when logically they should preclude such an observation.



Causal relationship
If the case were simply that a distant observer was only receiving a light signal (or video) of my 8th birthday now, then the the issue wouldn't pertain to world tubes; because a light signal from my 8th birthday, containing information about those present, including myself, wouldn't be sufficient to claim that my 8yr old self continues to exist. Just as light coming from a distant star, which may now be extinct, doesn't mean that the star still exists; it is just the light hitting the retina of the observer which enables the observer to see an image, or a photograph of the event; the photograph of the event isn't the event itself.

But, the fact that certain events enjoy a causal relationship with certain other events doesn't address the question of what causes relative motion, if not absolute motion.



Static Models
That static models can represent dynamical models isn't in question, but the simple fact that static models can represent the observations of dynamical models doesn't mean that there is no onus on the model to explain the dynamics; insofar as it doesn't or, in this case, can't, it means that the model is either not complete or doesn't accurately represent reality, or the physical world.

Minkowski spacetime is a perfect example of this; here we have a model which brilliantly explains what the nature of spacetime must be, to account for certain observations; however, when we follow Minkowski spacetime to its natural conclusion we can see that it actually precludes the most fundamental of all our observations, namely, relative motion and an ever changing present moment. It gives rise to some fundamental paradoxes, which thus far have not been resolved; paradoxes which will require a very exotic explanation to resolve.


EDIT: So yes, it is possible to have a static model of the observations of a dynamical system, but that static model can't logically preclude the most basic observations of those dynamical systems; as Minkowski spacetime appears to do.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

I'll address the claim that the second question has been answered, below.

Firslty though, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "there are only representations"; however, that isn't grounds to dismiss it out of hand; I have an idea what you mean, but I'm sure once you calrify what you mean, we can discuss it a little further.

As for the term "manifest" or "manifestation", what is meant is as follows: you have stated that all objects exist as 4D world tubes, however, to us, objects don't appear as 4D world tubes. If you take an orange for example, when you pick up an orange, you don't see a 4D world tube extended through spacetime, you see a 3D object existing in a present moment; this means that the, supposed, 4D world tubes manifest as 3D objects i.e. that is what we observe.

Now, if we take objects which are moving relative to each other; these are, supposedly, static 4D world tubes, with angular orientation to each other, extended through spacetime; but, again, we do not observe static 4D world tubes with angular orientation, we observe 3D objects moving relative to each other; so we can say that these, supposed, 4D world tubes, with angular orientation manifest as 3D objects moving relative to each other i.e. what we observe is 3D objects, in the present moment, moving relative to each other.

The question is, how do these static, 4D world tubes manifest as relative motion; or, how do these static, 4D world tubes lead to us observing relative motion.

I am not experiencing my 8th birthday now, but I did experience it; unlike the thoughts of an identical twin which I would never experience, and whose thoughts would not have a causal relationship with me; so the two scenarios aren't really analogous; but as mentioned, as an explanation, it doesn't address the issue.

Yes, and this might explain why we don't experience the thoughts of our past and future selves, but it doesn't address the two issues; the clue is in your formulation of the analogy; "it is no more mysterious than why we don't experience the thoughts of an identical twin". What it doesn't do, is explain how static, unchanging world tubes cause us to experience an ever changing present moment; and it doesn't explain how static world tubes give rise to the observation of relative motion.

What you have done here, as you have been doing, is simply offer a little more detail on the structure of spacetime i.e. you're describing what spacetime is and how objects supposedly exist in spacetime; you're effectively just filling in a few details on the statement "objects exist as 4D world tubes", without addressing the questions of how do these static world tubes give rise to the scientific observations, which have lead to the conclusion that objects exist as 4D world tubes. Which is an important issue, because logically speaking, the spacetime interpretation should preclude observations such as relative motion, unless there is an exotic explanation to the contrary.

Interestingly, I'm not the one who requires assumptions about transcendental conscious experience.

My experience of life to date and, I think it's pretty safe to say, everyone's experience of life to date, is of an ever changing present moment; the majority of people, I believe, experience themselves growing older; I experienced my 8th birthday and the transition to the age I am now.

How is it that I experienced growing older if my 8yr old self still exists; why didn't my 8yr old self grow older at the same rate that I did, oror experience the transition to the age I am now; or, why didn't I remain 8yrs old. How has my conscious experience been of an ever changing present moment, where I gradually grow older, while my 8yr old self, supposedly, consciously experiences being 8yrs old and also growing older just as I did; while his 8yr old self co-exists with his aging self.

The explanation that is required, effectively has to address how I experienced growing older, from my 8th birthday (for the sake of discussion) to the age I am now, while my 8yr old self continued to exist as 8yrs old and, presumably had/is having the same conscious experiences I had while growing older, while his 8yr old self co-exists with his aging self and experiences growing older, while his 8yr old self co-exists......and so on ad infinitum.

In short, how do unchanging world tubes give rise to the experience and observation of change?

Also, how do static world tubes give rise to the observation of relative motion?

This just gives rise to the same questions as before; it's the observation of change and motion within systems which lead us to the conclusion of entropy; the question is, how do static, unchanging world tubes give rise to the observations of motion and change?

Again, you are falling back on vague language, asking questions that I have already shown are poorly posed. I can only conclude, therefore, that any problems you have are a result of your understanding of the postulates.

All events exist. All events are related by a spacetime metric. Observations are events. Relative motion is how observations are codified under arbitrary labelling systems. I.e. A reference frame might label you as at x at time t, and at x_2 at time t_2. The relative motion between you and the hypothetical observer implied by the reference frame is (x-x_2)/(t-t_2). I.e. Relative motion is codified from the labelling of events.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you are falling back on vague language, asking questions that I have already shown are poorly posed. I can only conclude, therefore, that any problems you have are a result of your understanding of the postulates.

And again, you are avoiding addressing the issues raised. I can only conclude that no exotic explanation has been dreamed up yet, to resolve the obvious paradoxes of the spacetime interpretation, or that there is no actual resolution to these obvious paradoxes.

I don't doubt, however, that your aversion to addressing the questions is rooted in the common cognitive phenomenon referred to as cognitive dissonance, brought about by a subconscious attachment to the idea of spacetime.


You said you didn't understand the use of the term "manifest", so I explained it. The English being used isn't difficult to understand, but I will try to state it more simply, if that will help; first in the form of a question, and then in the form of a statement.

Relative motion
Q: How is possible to observe relative motion, between objects, in a universe where objects exist as world tubes that are at static, and at rest relative to each other?

Statement: It is not possible to observe relative motion in a universe where objects exist as world tubes which are static, and at rest relative to each other.


Change & time
Q: How is it possible to observe change, in a universe where everything is unchanging?

Statement: it is not possible to observe change in a universe where everything is unchanging.


Growig old
Q: How is it possible to experience growing older in a universe where you exist as a world tube, and your past, present, and future co-exist together?

Statement: it is not possible to experience growing older in such a universe.


Conclusion
Minkowski spacetime precludes some of the most fundamental observations that we make in the universe.

Morbert wrote: »

All events exist. All events are related by a spacetime metric. Observations are events. Relative motion is how observations are codified under arbitrary labelling systems. I.e. A reference frame might label you as at x at time t, and at x_2 at time t_2. The relative motion between you and the hypothetical observer implied by the reference frame is (x-x_2)/(t-t_2). I.e. Relative motion is codified from the labelling of events.

Again, you are just describing what spacetime is, and how relative motion is codified under such an interpretation; this doesn't address the fact that relative motion is actually precluded by such a model, in the absence of some (or possibly just one) exceptionally exotic explanations/assumptios.

Of course, relative motion isn't simply "how observations are codified under arbitrary labelling systems"; I am looking out my window and see absolutely no mathematical reference system, there is no mathematical codifying of events, yet I can clearly observe relative motion.



If you have trouble with any of the terms used above, I will be glad to try and explain them for you.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

And again, you are avoiding addressing the issues raised. I can only conclude that no exotic explanation has been dreamed up yet, to resolve the obvious paradoxes of the spacetime interpretation, or that there is no actual resolution to these obvious paradoxes.

I don't doubt, however, that your aversion to addressing the questions is rooted in the common cognitive phenomenon referred to as cognitive dissonance, brought about by a subconscious attachment to the idea of spacetime.

You said you didn't understand the use of the term "manifest", so I explained it. The English being used isn't difficult to understand, but I will try to state it more simply, if that will help; first in the form of a question, and then in the form of a statement.

Relative motion
Q: How is possible to observe relative motion, between objects, in a universe where objects exist as world tubes that are at static, and at rest relative to each other?

Statement: It is not possible to observe relative motion in a universe where objects exist as world tubes which are static, and at rest relative to each other.

Change & time
Q: How is it possible to observe change, in a universe where everything is unchanging?

Statement: it is not possible to observe change in a universe where everything is unchanging.

Growig old
Q: How is it possible to experience growing older in a universe where you exist as a world tube, and your past, present, and future co-exist together?

Statement: it is not possible to experience growing older in such a universe.

Conclusion
Minkowski spacetime precludes some of the most fundamental observations that we make in the universe.

You are begging the question. You are presupposing a problem with the relation between observations of relative motion when no such problem exists. Given the definitions of relative motion and observation I have tendered, there is no paradox.

Again, you are just describing what spacetime is, and how relative motion is codified under such an interpretation; this doesn't address the fact that relative motion is actually precluded by such a model, in the absence of some (or possibly just one) exceptionally exotic explanations/assumptios.

Of course, relative motion isn't simply "how observations are codified under arbitrary labelling systems"; I am looking out my window and see absolutely no mathematical reference system, there is no mathematical codifying of events, yet I can clearly observe relative motion.

If you have trouble with any of the terms used above, I will be glad to try and explain them for you.

Again, all relative motion is is a codification of events in spacetime. That is how it is defined, and nothing more exotic is required.

Masteroid

Morbert wrote: »

Again, all relative motion is is a codification of events in spacetime. That is how it is defined, and nothing more exotic is required.

I think that is right and it might be useful to think of 'objects' as themselves being a 'set of events', their existence being entirely due to events taking place at a quantum level. Any 'object' is an emergent property of a configuration of energy that gives rise to the structured and persistent organisation of forces.

Now, if matter is simply a configuration of energy then surely absolute motion is inevitable. The 2nd LoT pretty much states that energy must move to somewhere cooler and surely this causes the creation of the space in which energy can interact to create structure which ultimately may be reducible to 'standing waves'.

And the way in which structure evolves is dependent on the relative motion of all the participating events which comprise the entire system of energy.

But energy cannot be still. Heat is not static. And energy is just a form of heat really. Even if there was just one point in space that had the characteristics of heat in an otherwise perfect void entirely devoid of energy at a uniform temperature of absolute zero then a universe would inevitably evolve in exactly the same way ours seems to have done.

And that's the thing. Suppose that a point in space is at 1 millionth of a degree above freezing and is surrounded by space at absolute zero then that point would experience a 'big bang' as it tried to dissipate equally throughout the void.

Or, putting it slightly backward, if you thought of the entire void as being made of solid concrete and of the universe as a tiny hole at the centre of this void, then the force of gravity alone would guarantee that change would be initiated at the centre that would have the characteristics of a big bang.

If we were to think in these terms then we could say that the universe is 'the (any) volume of space inside the void that is not at a temperature of absolute zero' and with the second law in mind could then rule out absolute rest.

Whichever way you look at it, absolute motion is inevitable and it is from a system in absolute motion that relative motion has emerged. The 'clumpiness' of the universe, the slightly uneven distribution of matter/energy throughout the universe, is due to a lack of symmetry 'codified' within the DNA , if you will, of the big bang. And again, and if you were to think of 'points' as being spherical in nature, a lack of symmetry on some arbirarily small scale is inevitable.

I think of it like this:

I define a point in space that can be described as 'not at a temperature of absolute zero' that is contained in a space that is.

Then I imagine that point as being composed of an infinite number of 'point particles' that are representative of the energy distribution pattern.

These points are in motion and it is the internal jostling of these particles that give rise to the expansion of that space (energy being manifest in the relative motion of these particles).

So, the interactions of these particles that comprise 'warm space' result in particles being liberated from the surface into 'cold space'. In this way, warm space loses energy.

Now, in my mind, even assuming particles leave the surface uniformly, all on equally divergent paths due to what started out as 'perfect symmetry', the internal 'reflected' forces would create structures and a kind of atmoshere with a climate would emerge and as soon as it gets to a point where these structures interact with each other, the symmetry starts to break and, continuing in a meteorological vein, weather systems would evolve causing different types of change occurring to smaller scale structures while constantly expanding.

Then I think of the first particles to be liberated from the surface. They can never interact with the system again and they define an 'edge' of a universe.

Then I think of the particles in the region around the surface of the warm space. Particles liberated from the surface on non-divergent paths can interact. Relativity applies here. I think of the surface as 'foaming' due to the internal distribution of forces creating wave patterns. And I also think of galaxies.

Then I think of the central region. This is where energy waves that have 'bounced back' from the surface mean that most of the energy is concentrated here. This is the engine for accelerated expansion. Particles that leave the surface can interact with particles that left the surface due to an earlier event. In every such case, in every 'collision', at least one particle of a pair is accelerated toward the 'edge of the universe'. And the other is left behind and will become one half of a pair in some subsequent collision.

To be honest, this is how the universe looks to me.

And finally, absolute rest.

Obviously, in the system I describe, if there is absolute rest it can only be at a point at the centre of the universe. But a particle at that point, even assuming perfect starting symmetry, will be jostled about as it is pounded by patterns of energy that have different wave-shapes on opposite sides. It will move so it seems reasonable to conclude that absolute rest is in fact impossible.

That's what I think and throughout this I don't think that I have violated determinism even once. Nor presentism.

From the point of view of the void, this expansion 'feels' like an internal tear. There is a kind of slackening that allows the void to accommodate the area of expansion. And this is where the vast energy comes from.

Think of two tectonic plates that are resting one upon the other but overlapping only over a small area and imagine water flowing and eroding that boundary. There are small forces causing constant changes to the boundary almost regardless and unaffected by by forces that are being held in equillibrium while there is enough overlap. But there comes a point, a set of events occur, that mean those forces are out of equillibrium and one plate falls releasing, usually catastrophically, a vast amount of stored energy.

Well, the existence of the universe is equivalent to the flowing water and the overlapping plates are like the void. The expanding space creates 'fissures' in the void causing the void to 'relax' a little as it tries to maintain absolute zero. When 'universes' meet, and I mean universe as in 'a universe is any point in space that is not at absolute zero', the tear is accelerated. A bit like when fabric is stretched to breaking point, rapid breakdown occurs in a particular area and the surface area of the entire fabric is increased. There's a 'give' as energy is dissipated from the tear.

Or think of putting a pin into a balloon and how relaxation can produce energy.

So:

1, There is no possibility of 'absolute rest'

2, All objects are in 'relative motion' in some frame of reference

3, Not all objects are in relative motion to each other

4, All objects have a component of absolute motion that occurred due to the 2nd LoT

5, 'Relative motion' constitutes a detailed historical account of the breakdown in symmetry.

But none of this needs any real thing called spacetime to exist. Nor gravity. The existence of energy causes change to occur. Determinism decides how structure evolves, space and matter are the 'froth' caused by energy and are perceived as the 'present' and everything moves.

Isn't it kind of obvious that hot things have a tendency to cool and doesn't this hint that there is the only dimension, one direction, required in order to make a universe? And all that is required for that is a point in the void that is not at absolute zero. A trillionth of a degree could be converted into unlimited energy within the void. One direction, away from the heat, toward the cold.

Isn't it reasonable to conclude that everything that is perceived to exist is in motion to some extent and on every scale?

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

You are begging the question. You are presupposing a problem with the relation between observations of relative motion when no such problem exists. Given the definitions of relative motion and observation I have tendered, there is no paradox.

If we take a look at your definition again so:

Morbert wrote: »

All events exist. All events are related by a spacetime metric. Observations are events. Relative motion is how observations are codified under arbitrary labelling systems. I.e. A reference frame might label you as at x at time t, and at x_2 at time t_2. The relative motion between you and the hypothetical observer implied by the reference frame is (x-x_2)/(t-t_2). I.e. Relative motion is codified from the labelling of events.

The two emboldened statements say something quite different from each other; the former says that relative motion is the imaginary mathematical codification, while the latter says it is the thing being codified. It is the latter which is the accurate statement; because relative motion is not the codification of observations under arbitrary labeling systems, relative motion is the thing that is codified by those arbitrary labeling systems; that is, relative motion is primary, the codification is secondary.

Also, the relative motion between physical bodies isn't a number or a set of co-ordinates - relative velocity may be, but that is secondary to relative motion; co-ordinates can be used to describe relative motion, but the description is not the thing it describes. Again, you can look out the window, and assuming that you are not some form of borg who's vision overlays a co-ordinate grid onto what he sees, then you observe relative motion free of any abitrary labeling system or mathematical co-ordinates; so relative motion is entirely independent of any such mathematical artefacts.


Again, you are simply saying how the observation of relative motion is codified without explaining how there is any relative motion to codify in the first place.


Overcomplication
I think, as a result of cognitive dissonance, you are subconsciously over-complicating the matter to avoid facing the obvious paradox.

If I said to you; can two things which are at rest, relative to each other, result in the observation of relative motion?
You would have no trouble understanding and would unreservedly answer "no they can't".

The question being asked is no more difficult than that; how can two objects which are at rest relative to each other (world tubes), result in the observation or relative motion?

Morbert wrote: »

Again, all relative motion is is a codification of events in spacetime. That is how it is defined, and nothing more exotic is required.

Relative motion is entirely independent of the codification of events in spacetime; we observe relative motion free of any arbitrary co-ordinate systems; we apply co-ordinate systems to describe the relative motion.

Relative motion is the thing being codified; the question is simply, how is there relative motion to be codified when world tubes are at rest relative to each other?

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

If we take a look at your definition again so:

The two emboldened statements say something quite different from each other; the former says that relative motion is the imaginary mathematical codification, while the latter says it is the thing being codified. It is the latter which is the accurate statement; because relative motion is not the codification of observations under arbitrary labeling systems, relative motion is the thing that is codified by those arbitrary labeling systems; that is, relative motion is primary, the codification is secondary.

They are both saying different things, but both are correct. The concept of relative motion is how the relation between events in worldlines can be codified, and the labelling of relative motion is how the concept itself is quantified in different reference frames.

The salient question in your post is:

The question being asked is no more difficult than that; how can two objects which are at rest relative to each other (world tubes), result in the observation or relative motion?

The answer: An observation of relative motion requires two observations, at different times. So if I observe your relative motion, it means that there is some event along my worldline that is me oberving you, and some other event along my worldline that is me making another observation of you. How these two observations of you are related, is your motion relative to me.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

They are both saying different things, but both are correct. The concept of relative motion is how the relation between events in worldlines can be codified, and the labelling of relative motion is how the concept itself is quantified in different reference frames.

When you say "the concept of relative motion", do you mean the actual, physical relative motion that we observe? If you do, then the physical relative motion we observe isn't the codification of events, it comes prior to that and is entirely independent of it. We don't need to codify relative motion to observe it.

When you say "the labelling of relative motion is how the concept itself is quantified", what do you mean? Relative motion isn't a quantity, it's a simple observation prior to measurement or quantification; relative velocity is the measurement, but we don't need to consider relative velocity. Further, arbitrary co-ordinate systems can be used to describe relative motion, but relative motion is independent of such co-ordinate systems; just as it is independent of the conceptual labels we use to describe it.

Break-down
If we're looking to break it down then we can do so in terms of primary, secondary, and tertiary aspects.

The physical movement of one object relative to another is primary; it is free of concepts, and is what we observe in the physical world; the concepts we use to describe the physical observations are secondary; concept such as "physical", "relative", "motion" etc. We can discuss relative motion using these two "levels" alone.

The codification, and/or quantification of relative motion, using arbitrary co-ordinates, is tertiary; indeed, it might more accurately be termed relative velocity, as opposed to relative motion; because relative motion isn't a quantity and it isn't the codification of the physical motion between two objects.

Morbert wrote: »

The salient question in your post is:

The answer: An observation of relative motion requires two observations, at different times. So if I observe your relative motion, it means that there is some event along my worldline that is me oberving you, and some other event along my worldline that is me making another observation of you.

This is just the same thing that has been said, phrased slightly differently; it is merely a description of what spacetime is, not an explanation of how objects which are at rest relative to each other can give rise to relative motion.

Morbert wrote: »

How these two observations of you are related, is your motion relative to me.

This appears to be another vague one liner, which again, fails to address the issue.

The relation between events, as has been discussed, is spatial and, supposedly temporal; despite the fact that only a spatial relationship can be demonstrated.

That the relation between events is supposedly spatio-temporal, doesn't address how objects which are at rest relative to each other can result in relative motion. It's simply a variation on the description of what spacetime is.

EDIT: we might also say that events are related by a hyperbolic geometry, but that doesn't address the issues either.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

When you say "the concept of relative motion", do you mean the actual, physical relative motion that we observe? If you do, then the physical relative motion we observe isn't the codification of events, it comes prior to that and is entirely independent of it. We don't need to codify relative motion to observe it.

When you say "the labelling of relative motion is how the concept itself is quantified", what do you mean? Relative motion isn't a quantity, it's a simple observation prior to measurement or quantification; relative velocity is the measurement, but we don't need to consider relative velocity. Further, arbitrary co-ordinate systems can be used to describe relative motion, but relative motion is independent of such co-ordinate systems; just as it is independent of the conceptual labels we use to describe it.

I mean relative motion of Y is the differential, dx/dt, as defined in the reference frame of the observer or object that Y is in motion, relative to. This quantity, while explicitly defined in the reference frame of Y, is the same for all observers. Or, more generally, we say that if Y is in motion relative to an object, the motion of Y relative to that object, calculated in an arbitrary reference frame will always be non-zero.

Break-down
If we're looking to break it down then we can do so in terms of primary, secondary, and tertiary aspects.

The physical movement of one object relative to another is primary; it is free of concepts, and is what we observe in the physical world; the concepts we use to describe the physical observations are secondary; concept such as "physical", "relative", "motion" etc. We can discuss relative motion using these two "levels" alone.

The codification, and/or quantification of relative motion, using arbitrary co-ordinates, is tertiary; indeed, it might more accurately be termed relative velocity, as opposed to relative motion; because relative motion isn't a quantity and it isn't the codification of the physical motion between two objects.

Yes, but the relation between 4D spacetime and relative motion is established by defining relative motion rigorously, which requires an understanding of what reference frames are in the context of 4D spacetime.

This is just the same thing that has been said, phrased slightly differently; it is merely a description of what spacetime is, not an explanation of how objects which are at rest relative to each other can give rise to relative motion.

Objects which are at rest relative to each other do not give rise to relative motion.

World lines are atemporal structures, neither at rest nor in motion. Instead, relative motion and relative rest are expressions of their structure.

This appears to be another vague one liner, which again, fails to address the issue.

The relation between events, as has been discussed, is spatial and, supposedly temporal; despite the fact that only a spatial relationship can be demonstrated.

That the relation between events is supposedly spatio-temporal, doesn't address how objects which are at rest relative to each other can result in relative motion. It's simply a variation on the description of what spacetime is.

EDIT: we might also say that events are related by a hyperbolic geometry, but that doesn't address the issues either.

My answer is not vague nor was it a single sentence. You suspiciously omitted the important first part of the paragraph. So relative motion is the relation between events, dx/dt, which has a very precise meaning.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

I mean relative motion of Y is the differential, dx/dt, as defined in the reference frame of the observer or object that Y is in motion, relative to. This quantity, while explicitly defined in the reference frame of Y, is the same for all observers. Or, more generally, we say that if Y is in motion relative to an object, the motion of Y relative to that object, calculated in an arbitrary reference frame will always be non-zero.

As has been stated, relative motion isn't a quantity.

The observation of relative motion is entirely independent of all mathematical co-ordinates, and mathematics in general. The observation of relative motion is not a quantity or a measurement, it comes before the quantity or measurement; I think you might be referring to relative velocity, which is a secondary aspect of relative motion. Again, if you look at the world around you, you will observe relative motion but no mathematical co-ordinates; you can observe relative motion without knowing or measuring the relative velocity. The relative motion you observe will not be a number or quantity; it comes prior to such measurements and calculations; the observation of relative motion forms the basis of those measurements and calculations, not the other way around.

The question, we are trying to address, is how world tubes can lead to the non-mathematical, co-ordinate free observation of relative motion, in the first place. In that context, the explanation above could be dismissed out of hand.


But, if we look at the meaning of the definition you have provided: you say that the "relative motion of Y is the differential, dx/dt"; am I correct in saying that "the differential, dx/dt" means the change in 'x' over the change in 't' - or refers to change in some way?

If so, then that doesn't address the question; it, again, simply states what relative motion is, not how atemporal, unchanging worldtubes can lead to observations of change, in both position and time.

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, but the relation between 4D spacetime and relative motion is established by defining relative motion rigorously, which requires an understanding of what reference frames are in the context of 4D spacetime.

This is a pretty vague statement, which again, doesn't actually address the question; and, if we take it in the context of your explanation of relative motion above, I think there may be some confusion with relative velocity.

If we state the issue more explicitly, we're not so much interested in the "relation between 4D spacetime and relative motion", we are interested in how atemporal, unchanging, and static world tubes can lead to observations of relative motion.

Thus far the explanation has simply consisted of re-stating what spacetime is, and attempting to give details on how objects exist as world tubes; we now have an explanation of what relative motion is; but what we are missing is an explanation of how those world tubes lead to observations of relative motion.

Morbert wrote: »

Objects which are at rest relative to each other do not give rise to relative motion.

World lines are atemporal structures, neither at rest nor in motion.

If world tubes are physical, which I presume they must be, then they must be either in motion or at rest relative to other physical objects.

Morbert wrote: »

Instead, relative motion and relative rest are expressions of their structure.

This is another vague statement, which doesn't address the issue.

Relative motion is a physical observation, independent of all mathematical expression, in terms of co-ordinates and mathematics; the mathematics and co-ordinates are secondary. The co-ordinates and mathematics can be used to calculate relative velocity.

Morbert wrote: »

My answer is not vague nor was it a single sentence. You suspiciously omitted the important first part of the paragraph. So relative motion is the relation between events, dx/dt, which has a very precise meaning.

And you suspiciously accuse me of omitting the first part of the paragraph, which I clearly haven't; all parts of the response were included in my response; I merely separated them out to highlight what was just a restatement of what had already been said, and what was the attempted resolution of the issue; the attempted resolution was the vague one-liner.


But again, what is provided here is a statement of what relative motion is, or, more accurately perhaps, what relative velocity is; not how static world tubes give rise to the observation of relative motion, from which we calculate or measure relative velocity.



Clarification
What we seem to have is an explanation in terms of events; where past, present, and future events co-exist. Given the co-ordinates of these events, it seems we can calculate things like relative velocity, and so forth; what we don't have, and what we are looking for, is an explanation as to how we can seemingly observe the movement of an object from one set of co-ordinates to another; how we seem to experience the transition from one event to the next, when no such transition occurs; how we can seem to experience this transition, while all previous instances of ourselves continue to co-exist and presumably experience the same, seeming transition; while their previous selves, supposedly experience the same thing.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

As has been stated, relative motion isn't a quantity.

The observation of relative motion is entirely independent of all mathematical co-ordinates, and mathematics in general. The observation of relative motion is not a quantity or a measurement, it comes before the quantity or measurement; I think you might be referring to relative velocity, which is a secondary aspect of relative motion. Again, if you look at the world around you, you will observe relative motion but no mathematical co-ordinates; you can observe relative motion without knowing or measuring the relative velocity. The relative motion you observe will not be a number or quantity; it comes prior to such measurements and calculations; the observation of relative motion forms the basis of those measurements and calculations, not the other way around.

The question, we are trying to address, is how world tubes can lead to the non-mathematical, co-ordinate free observation of relative motion, in the first place. In that context, the explanation above could be dismissed out of hand.

No it could not. The description of relative motion I gave is independent of any reference frame, provided we define what the motion is relative to.

But, if we look at the meaning of the definition you have provided: you say that the "relative motion of Y is the differential, dx/dt"; am I correct in saying that "the differential, dx/dt" means the change in 'x' over the change in 't' - or refers to change in some way?

If so, then that doesn't address the question; it, again, simply states what relative motion is, not how atemporal, unchanging worldtubes can lead to observations of change, in both position and time.

dx/dt refers to change in x with respect to change in t, but is also applicable to 4D spacetime as the tangent of a worldline at a given point. So atemporal world lines don't "give rise" to obsevations of change. Instead, change, and the first derivative of worldines are different ways of saying the same thing.

This is a pretty vague statement, which again, doesn't actually address the question; and, if we take it in the context of your explanation of relative motion above, I think there may be some confusion with relative velocity.

It is a precise statement. You cannot understand the relation of the observation of change with 4D spacetime if you do not understand how 4D spacetime and frames of references are related.

If we state the issue more explicitly, we're not so much interested in the "relation between 4D spacetime and relative motion", we are interested in how atemporal, unchanging, and static world tubes can lead to observations of relative motion.

They don't lead to it. Instead, relative velocity is how we classify events. Change is a representation, not a consequence.

Thus far the explanation has simply consisted of re-stating what spacetime is, and attempting to give details on how objects exist as world tubes; we now have an explanation of what relative motion is; but what we are missing is an explanation of how those world tubes lead to observations of relative motion.

Attempting? I have explicitly described the relation between an object, and a worldline that consists of the entire history of the object. Your entire issue is predicated on a misunderstanding of that relation.

If world tubes are physical, which I presume they must be, then they must be either in motion or at rest relative to other physical objects.

No. Rest is dx/dt = 0. States of rest can be defined on points along the worldine, but not the worldline itself. The same way a tangent can be defined on a point on a curve, but not the curve itself.

This is another vague statement, which doesn't address the issue.

Relative motion is a physical observation, independent of all mathematical expression, in terms of co-ordinates and mathematics; the mathematics and co-ordinates are secondary. The co-ordinates and mathematics can be used to calculate relative velocity.

It is a precise statement that does address the issue. Instead, what is irrelevant is your above statement about frame independence. The structure of a worldline is indeed independent of any reference frame, this does not contradict any statement I have made.

And you suspiciously accuse me of omitting the first part of the paragraph, which I clearly haven't; all parts of the response were included in my response; I merely separated them out to highlight what was just a restatement of what had already been said, and what was the attempted resolution of the issue; the attempted resolution was the vague one-liner.

This is incredibly strange. You deliberately separate my paragraph, isolating a single line, and then accuse that line of being a " vague one-liner". I gave you a precise resolution (not a one-liner) to the problem. I explicitly told you how relative motion and 4D spacetime are related.

But again, what is provided here is a statement of what relative motion is, or, more accurately perhaps, what relative velocity is; not how static world tubes give rise to the observation of relative motion, from which we calculate or measure relative velocity.

But that's just it. Worldines don't give rise to relative velocity. Relative velocity is an observation of atemporal worldlines.

Clarification
What we seem to have is an explanation in terms of events; where past, present, and future events co-exist. Given the co-ordinates of these events, it seems we can calculate things like relative velocity, and so forth; what we don't have, and what we are looking for, is an explanation as to how we can seemingly observe the movement of an object from one set of co-ordinates to another; how we seem to experience the transition from one event to the next, when no such transition occurs; how we can seem to experience this transition, while all previous instances of ourselves continue to co-exist and presumably experience the same, seeming transition; while their previous selves, supposedly experience the same thing.

And I have also given you the answer before. What you call a transition is your perception. The existence of 4D spacetime in no way implies we should simultaneously perceive all events in our history.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

No it could not. The description of relative motion I gave is independent of any reference frame, provided we define what the motion is relative to.

The critical point is that the observation of relative motion isn't a numerical value; it isn't a quantity provided by the differential dx/dt.

Those values appear to pertain to relative velocity, which is a numerical value; so the explanation being provided appears to be how we can derive relative velocity given two sets of co-ordinates

Again, however, we are not interested in relative velocity, as our observation of relative motion is independent of our measurement, or calculation of relative velocity. The question we are interested in is, how we can observe relative motion at all, that allows us to measure relative velocity.

Deriving relative velocity from the past, present, or future co-ordinates, which all supposedly co-exist, doesn't explain how we observe relative motion in the first place.

Also, the description of relative motion provided may be applicable to all reference frames, but it is not independent of them as information from a reference frame is required to put into the equation.


Given that our observation of relative motion is not numerical, or abstractly mathematical; that is, if we look at the world around us, we do not see co-ordinates, or numerical values, but we do observe relative motion; the mathematical co-ordinates and equations used to describe relative motion, or rather calculate relative velocity, are secondary to the physical observation. On that basis alone, it can be dismissed out of hand.

Morbert wrote: »

dx/dt refers to change in x with respect to change in t, but is also applicable to 4D spacetime as the tangent of a worldline at a given point. So atemporal world lines don't "give rise" to obsevations of change. Instead, change, and the first derivative of worldines are different ways of saying the same thing.

I presume that the tangent of the worldline is merely the plotting of values from the given equation.

Again, however, we don't observe tangents in the physical world, they are mathematical artefacts - unless they too are given ontological status in the theory of relativity; we do however observe motion and change in the physical world, so the two cannot be the same thing. One is a mathematical representation of the other. To re-iterate, the change that we observe is not the first derivative of worldlines; the change we observe is entirely independent of any mathematics used to describe it.

What we are trying to establish is how it is possible to, apparently, observe change and motion in a universe where world tubes are static and unchanging.

Again, deriving relative velocity from any given set of co-ordinates doesn't address this, more fundamental question.

Morbert wrote: »

It is a precise statement. You cannot understand the relation of the observation of change with 4D spacetime if you do not understand how 4D spacetime and frames of references are related.

Our observation of relative motion is entirely independent of frames of reference, so explaining how 4D spacetime and frames of reference are related doesn't explain how we can observe change and relative motion in unchanging, static world tubes.

Morbert wrote: »

They don't lead to it. Instead, relative velocity is how we classify events. Change is a representation, not a consequence.

To re-iterate, we are not interested in relative velocity.

Change is not a mathematical representation; the observation of change is a physcial phenomenon independent of all mathematics used to quantify it; we can use mathematics to describe and predict relative motion and velocity; I don't think mathematics can be used to explain how relative motion can be observed in world tubes. It can be used to describe, or rather quantify relative motion, but not to explain how it is possible.

Morbert wrote: »

Attempting? I have explicitly described the relation between an object, and a worldline that consists of the entire history of the object. Your entire issue is predicated on a misunderstanding of that relation.

Precisely, that is all that has been done thus far; all that has been described is how an object exists as a world tube, and an attempts have been made to give additional details, such as how thoughts are events, and so on; what hasn't been done is to explain how objects which, supposedly, exist as static and unchanging world tubes can be observed to change and move relative to each other.

The issue appears to be predicated on the misundertsanding that simply describing how objects exist as world tubes, doesn't explain how objects can be observed to move relative to each other.

Morbert wrote: »

No. Rest is dx/dt = 0. States of rest can be defined on points along the worldine, but not the worldline itself. The same way a tangent can be defined on a point on a curve, but not the curve itself.

Again, the observation of rest is not a numerical value; you can observe objects at rest relative to each other in the world around you without any recourse to mathematics or numerical values.

Although, it is probably worth pointing out that we are not interested in relative rest, only relative motion; the difficulty of determining of two objects are at relative rest, without measuring their relative velocities is, therefore, not an issue. We only need to consider the very obvious example where two objects can be seen to be moving relative to each other, with the naked eye.


Also, if a world line is physical, then it is either in motion or at rest relative to other world lines; that is the nature of physicality; again, entirely independent of any mathematics.

Morbert wrote: »

It is a precise statement that does address the issue. Instead, what is irrelevant is your above statement about frame independence. The structure of a worldline is indeed independent of any reference frame, this does not contradict any statement I have made.

The observations of relative motion and relative rest are not mathematical expressions; the explanation thus far seems to refer to the mathematical description of relative motion or, more accurately, relative velocity, and confusing it with the physical observation of relative motion. The explanation thus far has been to demonstrate how relative velocity can be derived from the co-ordinates of reference frames, but that doesn't address the issue.

Again, our observation of relative motion comes prior to any talk about co-ordinates or derivatives of dx/dt; these mathematical artefacts can be used to describe relative motion once it occurs, they don't, however, explain how relative motion is possible in a universe where objects exist as static, unchanging world tubes.

Morbert wrote: »

This is incredibly strange. You deliberately separate my paragraph, isolating a single line, and then accuse that line of being a " vague one-liner". I gave you a precise resolution (not a one-liner) to the problem. I explicitly told you how relative motion and 4D spacetime are related.

The paragraph was separated into that which was just a restatement of what had already been said i.e. the description of how objects exist as world tubes, and the one line statement that was intended to be a resolution of the issue. Whether it was concsious or sub-conscious, the purpose of restating what had already been said appeared to simply be to beef up the one line statement, to make it appear more robust.

Essentially, the explanation thus far has been how relative velocity can be derived from mathematical co-ordinates; what hasn't been explained how relative motion is possible in the first place.

Morbert wrote: »

But that's just it. Worldines don't give rise to relative velocity. Relative velocity is an observation of atemporal worldlines.

Firstly, we're interested in the simple observation of relative motion prior to any measurement of relative velocity.

Secondly, the question is how can relative motion, between objects, possibly be observed in a universe where objects, supposedly, exist as static, unchanging world lines (or world tubes)?

Morbert wrote: »

And I have also given you the answer before. What you call a transition is your perception.

And that is the question; how is it possible for me, and I dare say everyone else in the universe, to perceive such a transition when, supposedly, no such transition occurs?

How is it possible to observe change in changeless world tubes; how is it possible to observe relative motion in static world tubes?

Describing, in detail, how objects exist as world tubes doesn't address the issue; nor does explaining how relative velocity can be mathematically derived from a given set of co-ordinates.

Morbert wrote: »

The existence of 4D spacetime in no way implies we should simultaneously perceive all events in our history.

The 4D spacetime interpretation implies that all events in our history are simultaneously preceived; unless "my past self" doesn't preceive his present in the same manner as I perceive my present?

The explanation proffered was that this has to do with "how we identify ourselves"; which is just another fairly vague statement that doesn't address the issue.

Masteroid

If particles acquire mass due to being 'slowed down' by the Higg's field then how can it be said that the standard model does not implicitly assume absolute motion?

Morbert

I have been thinking about how best to respond to the most recent post. I could not understand how you would see a contradiction between relative motion and worldlines in spacetime. I believe the following is the core reason.

roosh wrote: »

The 4D spacetime interpretation implies that all events in our history are simultaneously preceived; unless "my past self" doesn't preceive his present in the same manner as I perceive my present?

The explanation proffered was that this has to do with "how we identify ourselves"; which is just another fairly vague statement that doesn't address the issue.

You are conflating the worldline of an object with the object itself. You are not your past self, nor are you your future self. Instead, you, your past self, your future self, all of your history, constitutes your worldline. The worldline itself does not do the self-identifying. Instead, the perception of yourself is an event in the worldline, all connected by an intrinsic metric.

Morbert

Masteroid wrote: »

If particles acquire mass due to being 'slowed down' by the Higg's field then how can it be said that the standard model does not implicitly assume absolute motion?

They're not slowed down by the Higgs field. The Higgs field is not some viscous medium a particle mush push itself through.

Particles have energy and momentum. If there is a difference in quantity between the energy of a particle and the momentum of a particle, we call that difference "mass". A photon has the same amount of energy as it does momentum, therefore we say the mass of a photon is 0. If no Higgs field existed, the energy of each particle should equal its momentum. All particles would be massless like photons. But the Higgs field interacts with particles in a way that produces a difference between the energy and momentum of the particle. Hence, the field "gives mass" to the particle.

Masteroid

Morbert wrote: »

They're not slowed down by the Higgs field. The Higgs field is not some viscous medium a particle mush push itself through.

Particles have energy and momentum. If there is a difference in quantity between the energy of a particle and the momentum of a particle, we call that difference "mass". A photon has the same amount of energy as it does momentum, therefore we say the mass of a photon is 0. If no Higgs field existed, the energy of each particle should equal its momentum. All particles would be massless like photons. But the Higgs field interacts with particles in a way that produces a difference between the energy and momentum of the particle. Hence, the field "gives mass" to the particle.

In other words, the Higg's field applies a change to either the quantity of momentum or the quantity of energy. If momentum is decreased then the Higg's field must gain energy from the particle causing it to slow down. If momentum is increased then the Higg's field must impart, and therefore expend, energy in order to increase the velocity of a particle.

In the former case a kind of resistance is indeed introduce by the Higg's field and in the latter, we are simply attributing the effect of gravity to the Higg's field.

Then it could be that the Higg's field only interacts with particles that have spin but again, this would imply a kind of resistance that would cause 'path bending' by having a braking effect that is more pronounced on one side of the particle relative to the other.

But this case could have the undesired consequence of proving that photons are not in fact particles after all.

So, how can any interactive process not result in an exchange of energy? The Higg's field either imparts or absorbs energy and the 2nd LoT would suggest that it would be the latter which kind of obviates the need for a Higg's boson altogether as we may well be simply discussing 'vaccuum energy' which provides a gradient along which energy must move which provides a framework for the concept of gravity which provides a 'first cause' for the structures are evolving in the universe.

And in the end, it is 'absolute motion' that will determine how the largest of those structures will interact.

Morbert

Masteroid wrote: »

In other words, the Higg's field applies a change to either the quantity of momentum or the quantity of energy. If momentum is decreased then the Higg's field must gain energy from the particle causing it to slow down. If momentum is increased then the Higg's field must impart, and therefore expend, energy in order to increase the velocity of a particle.

In the former case a kind of resistance is indeed introduce by the Higg's field and in the latter, we are simply attributing the effect of gravity to the Higg's field.

Then it could be that the Higg's field only interacts with particles that have spin but again, this would imply a kind of resistance that would cause 'path bending' by having a braking effect that is more pronounced on one side of the particle relative to the other.

But this case could have the undesired consequence of proving that photons are not in fact particles after all.

So, how can any interactive process not result in an exchange of energy? The Higg's field either imparts or absorbs energy and the 2nd LoT would suggest that it would be the latter which kind of obviates the need for a Higg's boson altogether as we may well be simply discussing 'vaccuum energy' which provides a gradient along which energy must move which provides a framework for the concept of gravity which provides a 'first cause' for the structures are evolving in the universe.

And in the end, it is 'absolute motion' that will determine how the largest of those structures will interact.

No, the Higgs field is not a force-carrying field. You are again thinking of Newtonian mechanics when you should be thinking of quantum field coupling. I can't explain it in any more detail without getting technical. For the purposes of this thread, I will say that the Higgs field is Lorentz-invariant, and therefore not in any way like the aether of Lorentzian relativity.

roosh

Apologies for the long delay in replying; I was on vacation for the past couple of weeks and was pretty busy in the lead up to it; I should have posted a little note to say as much, but I thought that I would get a chance to reply at some point; but I didn't get a chance to sit down and write a reply when I wasn't tired or otherwise pre-occupied.

Morbert wrote: »

I have been thinking about how best to respond to the most recent post. I could not understand how you would see a contradiction between relative motion and worldlines in spacetime.

With Minkowski spacetime what we have is a model where objects exist as 4-Dimensional worldtubes, eternally extended in spacetime; that is all moments of an objects worldtube co-exist. These worldtubes are static and unchanging, because all points already exist.

Our naked observation of the world around us, that is, our observation free of any mathematical co-ordinate labeling systems, which don't exist a priori in nature, is such that we observe change and motion; that is, objects change in form and move from one location to another.

What we need is an explanation of how this observation of change and motion can arise from worldtubes which are unchanging and static. This in itself appears to be a blatant contradiction, for which an exotic explanation is required.

Morbert wrote: »

I believe the following is the core reason.

You are conflating the worldline of an object with the object itself. You are not your past self, nor are you your future self. Instead, you, your past self, your future self, all of your history, constitutes your worldline. The worldline itself does not do the self-identifying. Instead, the perception of yourself is an event in the worldline, all connected by an intrinsic metric.

If we take the above explanation and add the statement "therefore we observe relative motion" we can see that the explanation is a non-sequitir. This also means that it doesn't account for why I might be arriving at an incorrect conclusion about the contradiction between Minkowski spacetime and relative motion.

The question which is begged from above is, if we are not our past selves, nor are we our future selves, which "self" are we?

If we take the statement that the perception of ourselves is an event on the worldline, and therefore a particular section of our worldtube, then how do we observe relative motion; without some mechanism of transition from one moment to another we should, logically, observe the universe as frozen and unchanging; but we don't.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

Apologies for the long delay in replying; I was on vacation for the past couple of weeks and was pretty busy in the lead up to it; I should have posted a little note to say as much, but I thought that I would get a chance to reply at some point; but I didn't get a chance to sit down and write a reply when I wasn't tired or otherwise pre-occupied.



With Minkowski spacetime what we have is a model where objects exist as 4-Dimensional worldtubes, eternally extended in spacetime; that is all moments of an objects worldtube co-exist. These worldtubes are static and unchanging, because all points already exist.

Our naked observation of the world around us, that is, our observation free of any mathematical co-ordinate labeling systems, which don't exist a priori in nature, is such that we observe change and motion; that is, objects change in form and move from one location to another.

What we need is an explanation of how this observation of change and motion can arise from worldtubes which are unchanging and static. This in itself appears to be a blatant contradiction, for which an exotic explanation is required.





If we take the above explanation and add the statement "therefore we observe relative motion" we can see that the explanation is a non-sequitir. This also means that it doesn't account for why I might be arriving at an incorrect conclusion about the contradiction between Minkowski spacetime and relative motion.

The question which is begged from above is, if we are not our past selves, nor are we our future selves, which "self" are we?

If we take the statement that the perception of ourselves is an event on the worldline, and therefore a particular section of our worldtube, then how do we observe relative motion; without some mechanism of transition from one moment to another we should, logically, observe the universe as frozen and unchanging; but we don't.

It is a not a non sequitur. It instead challenges the assertion you made:"The 4D spacetime interpretation implies that all events in our history are simultaneously preceived"

If your assertion does not hold, then there is no problem between the observation of relative motion, and the existence of worldlines. It really is that simple.

A relevant question: If you were cloned, do you believe you would perceive what both you and your clone experience? If the answer is no, then why would you expect to perceive what your future or past self experiences?

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

It is a not a non sequitur. It instead challenges the assertion you made:"The 4D spacetime interpretation implies that all events in our history are simultaneously preceived"

If your assertion does not hold, then there is no problem between the observation of relative motion, and the existence of worldlines. It really is that simple.

A relevant question: If you were cloned, do you believe you would perceive what both you and your clone experience? If the answer is no, then why would you expect to perceive what your future or past self experiences?

Apologies, I might have caused some confusion by using the term "simultaneously" given the particular implications it has in this context; what I was referring to was the co-existence of past, present and future segments of a worldtube. Ordinarily, it would be fine to say that past, present and future are said to exist simultaneously; that is, they exist concurrently, or while we are experiencing our present, our past selves are also experiencing our past. So, our past and present are being experienced either simultaneously, concurrently, or "co-existentially".

Put another, slightly different way; while you are now experiencing your present, your past self is also experiencing your past.


But again, if we take the statement "we don't experience our past or future selves while we experience our present self" and add the conclusion, "therefore we observe relative motion", we can see that it is indeed a non-sequitur.


The issue doesn't lie in the fact that we don't experience our past or future at the same time as our present; the issue is that, if all of our experiences are just events in our world tube, then those events are frozen in the world tube, bcos, as you stated, there is no transition from one moment to the next; they all co-exist. This means that we should only ever experience one particular event on our world tube, and we should therefore experience a universe that is frozen and unchanging. Each segment of our world tube would be slightly different from the segment that preceded it, but each moment of self-identification would be frozen in time and space and the observation of relative motion could not occur.

What is required is some means by which there is a transition from moment to moment, while paradoxically maintaining each segment as frozen.

Masteroid

Morbert wrote: »

No, the Higgs field is not a force-carrying field. You are again thinking of Newtonian mechanics when you should be thinking of quantum field coupling. I can't explain it in any more detail without getting technical. For the purposes of this thread, I will say that the Higgs field is Lorentz-invariant, and therefore not in any way like the aether of Lorentzian relativity.

I'm sorry but doesn't the Higgs field actually give rise to Newtonian mechanics?

"Without the Higgs field all particles would be massless and would therefore necessarily travel at the speed of light." ... like photons do.

Indeed, according to the theory, the Higgs field wasn't always there. When the universe was too hot for for particles to form there was no Higgs field and it wasn't until a few picoseconds after the big-bang that the Higgs field 'developed' and 'kicked in' and endowed certain types of energy with mass.

So, from all of this it would appear that after the big-bang everything was in motion until the Higgs field introduced some kind of impedance which seperated out the energy configurations that gave rise to quarks which in turn allowed for hadrons to come into existence giving rise to the possibility of atoms etc.

You say the the Higgs field carries no force... then you must strongly disagree with those who believe that A, the Higgs fields drives expansion (and at an increasing rate) and B, that the Higgs field is responsible for the force of gravity, which would seem reasonable if you accept the Higgs field's hypothesised relationship with mass.

The Standard Model says that in the absence of a Higgs field, mass could not exist and all particles would travel at the speed of light. Without the Higgs field there could be no protons or electrons, atoms could not exist and the universe would be an entirely difference kind of place.

The Standard Model also suggests that the universe came into existence before the Higgs field did.

How is it possible to deny absolute motion?

I accept almost all of what you say in the context of what is relevant to science at the moment but I think that the question of absolute motion and its origin is very relevant to the very large scale structure of the universe.

Suppose it turned out to be the case that our entire galaxy was simply the epicentre of some other much larger system and that it was the same for all other galaxies. Suppose that galaxies were the result, the 'exhaust' if you will, of the interactions at the boundaries of these very large scale systems. Suppose the universe were filled with 'inter-galactic, rotating tectonic spheres' and that galaxies occurred as a result of the 'grinding' action of these constantly expanding spheres.

If one were to think along these lines then absolute motion might become relevant.

Morbert

Masteroid wrote: »

I'm sorry but doesn't the Higgs field actually give rise to Newtonian mechanics?

"Without the Higgs field all particles would be massless and would therefore necessarily travel at the speed of light." ... like photons do.[/

Indeed, according to the theory, the Higgs field wasn't always there. When the universe was too hot for for particles to form there was no Higgs field and it wasn't until a few picoseconds after the big-bang that the Higgs field 'developed' and 'kicked in' and endowed certain types of energy with mass.

So, from all of this it would appear that after the big-bang everything was in motion until the Higgs field introduced some kind of impedance which seperated out the energy configurations that gave rise to quarks which in turn allowed for hadrons to come into existence giving rise to the possibility of atoms etc.

You say the the Higgs field carries no force... then you must strongly disagree with those who believe that A, the Higgs fields drives expansion (and at an increasing rate) and B, that the Higgs field is responsible for the force of gravity, which would seem reasonable if you accept the Higgs field's hypothesised relationship with mass.

The Standard Model says that in the absence of a Higgs field, mass could not exist and all particles would travel at the speed of light. Without the Higgs field there could be no protons or electrons, atoms could not exist and the universe would be an entirely difference kind of place.

The Standard Model also suggests that the universe came into existence before the Higgs field did.

How is it possible to deny absolute motion?

I accept almost all of what you say in the context of what is relevant to science at the moment but I think that the question of absolute motion and its origin is very relevant to the very large scale structure of the universe.

Suppose it turned out to be the case that our entire galaxy was simply the epicentre of some other much larger system and that it was the same for all other galaxies. Suppose that galaxies were the result, the 'exhaust' if you will, of the interactions at the boundaries of these very large scale systems. Suppose the universe were filled with 'inter-galactic, rotating tectonic spheres' and that galaxies occurred as a result of the 'grinding' action of these constantly expanding spheres.

If one were to think along these lines then absolute motion might become relevant.

There are multiple incorrect statements in your post. The Higgs mechanism is not a force, for example, and it is certainly not responsible for the gravitational force. But to avoid getting into another wild goose chase: As I said before, the Higgs field is a Lorentz-invariant field. It therefore does not, in any way, necessitate absolute motion on a physical or metaphysical level.

[edit] - Perhaps the confusion lies with the fact that massless particles must travel at the speed of light. You can define this as absolute motion if you are very specific about what you mean: "The speed of the massless particles will be observed to be c for all observers." In other words, the relative motion of the particle, with respect to an arbitrary observer, will always be c. This definition does not necessitate any physical or metaphysical state of rest, since all observers would measure c.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

Apologies, I might have caused some confusion by using the term "simultaneously" given the particular implications it has in this context; what I was referring to was the co-existence of past, present and future segments of a worldtube. Ordinarily, it would be fine to say that past, present and future are said to exist simultaneously; that is, they exist concurrently, or while we are experiencing our present, our past selves are also experiencing our past. So, our past and present are being experienced either simultaneously, concurrently, or "co-existentially".

Put another, slightly different way; while you are now experiencing your present, your past self is also experiencing your past.


But again, if we take the statement "we don't experience our past or future selves while we experience our present self" and add the conclusion, "therefore we observe relative motion", we can see that it is indeed a non-sequitur.

It is not a non-sequitur. The observation of relative motion emerges from the relation between observations made by our past and future selves.

In special relativity, the observation of relative motion is the difference in time between two events in a world line over the difference in space, as defined by the coordinate labels used (hence "relative" motion).

In general relativity. General covariance pushes this a step further. You can't even relate coordinate systems between slices of "nows", and those "nows" do not have to relate to any possible observer. The best you can do is vaguely match coordinate systems for nearby slices and attribute change to a difference in metric.

Therefore, the observation of relative motion, according to relativity, can be attributed to the metric structure of spacetime, and is consistent with the atemporal existence of spacetime.

The issue doesn't lie in the fact that we don't experience our past or future at the same time as our present; the issue is that, if all of our experiences are just events in our world tube, then those events are frozen in the world tube, bcos, as you stated, there is no transition from one moment to the next; they all co-exist. This means that we should only ever experience one particular event on our world tube, and we should therefore experience a universe that is frozen and unchanging. Each segment of our world tube would be slightly different from the segment that preceded it, but each moment of self-identification would be frozen in time and space and the observation of relative motion could not occur.

What is required is some means by which there is a transition from moment to moment, while paradoxically maintaining each segment as frozen.

How do you reach the conclusion in blue? It is not that the world line exists "eternally". It instead exists "atemporally".

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

It is not a non-sequitur. The observation of relative motion emerges from the relation between observations made by our past and future selves.

This doesn't resolve the issue of the non-sequitir; "our future self does not experience the thoughts of our past self, therefore we observe relative motion" is a non-sequitir.

Indeed, it is precisely the relation between observations, made by our past and future selves, which excludes the possibility of the observation of relative motion. As all points of a worldtube are static and there is no moment to moment transition, there can be no observation of change or relative motion.

Morbert wrote: »

In special relativity, the observation of relative motion is the difference in time between two events in a world line over the difference in space, as defined by the coordinate labels used (hence "relative" motion).

This is just a restatement of what has already been said, and the same issue applies; our observation of relative motion is entirely independent of all co-ordinate labeling systems and isn't numerical. Co-ordinate systems and numerical values for velocity are secondary to the actual observation of relative motion.

Morbert wrote: »

In general relativity. General covariance pushes this a step further. You can't even relate coordinate systems between slices of "nows", and those "nows" do not have to relate to any possible observer. The best you can do is vaguely match coordinate systems for nearby slices and attribute change to a difference in metric.

We can simplify the issue and consider the worldtube of any observer, to see how it doesn't correspond to our observations.

If we take any iteration of "your self", that is, any event of self-identification, we can see that each event of self-identification exists in your worldtube as a static, unchanging point. Each of these go to make up your worldtube, or history. Taking one of those events, then, without any transition to a later point, you do not observe yourself to grow older, you should, simply, observe yourself frozen in time and space along with every other simultaneous event; unless you observe events unfold while you do not age; which again doesn't correspond to our empirical observations.

Morbert wrote: »

Therefore, the observation of relative motion, according to relativity, can be attributed to the metric structure of spacetime, and is consistent with the atemporal existence of spacetime.

As outlined above, it is the structure of spacetime and worldtubes which excludes the possibility of the observation of relative motion; it doesn't explain it.

Morbert wrote: »

How do you reach the conclusion in blue? It is not that the world line exists "eternally". It instead exists "atemporally".

Although it isn't really a material point, we don't need to say that a worldline exists eternally, we can simply take a worldline where all points co-exist.

Without any moment to moment transition there can be no observation of change or relative motion.

EDIT: if you have two lines which are at angles to each other, without any movement of something along those lines, or of the lines themselves, there will be no relative motion; two static lines, at angles to each other, do not permit relative motion, regardless of the underlying structure.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

This doesn't resolve the issue of the non-sequitir; "our future self does not experience the thoughts of our past self, therefore we observe relative motion" is a non-sequitir.

That has nothing to do with what I said. I said relative motion is a spatio-temporal characteristic of worldlines. That the worldlines themselves exist atemporally is unimportant, as it does not raise any contradictions.

Indeed, it is precisely the relation between observations, made by our past and future selves, which excludes the possibility of the observation of relative motion. As all points of a worldtube are static and there is no moment to moment transition, there can be no observation of change or relative motion.

This is just a restatement of what has already been said, and the same issue applies; our observation of relative motion is entirely independent of all co-ordinate labeling systems and isn't numerical. Co-ordinate systems and numerical values for velocity are secondary to the actual observation of relative motion.

We can simplify the issue and consider the worldtube of any observer, to see how it doesn't correspond to our observations.

If we take any iteration of "your self", that is, any event of self-identification, we can see that each event of self-identification exists in your worldtube as a static, unchanging point. Each of these go to make up your worldtube, or history. Taking one of those events, then, without any transition to a later point, you do not observe yourself to grow older, you should, simply, observe yourself frozen in time and space along with every other simultaneous event; unless you observe events unfold while you do not age; which again doesn't correspond to our empirical observations.

As outlined above, it is the structure of spacetime and worldtubes which excludes the possibility of the observation of relative motion; it doesn't explain it.

Although it isn't really a material point, we don't need to say that a worldline exists eternally, we can simply take a worldline where all points co-exist.

Without any moment to moment transition there can be no observation of change or relative motion.

You now seem to simply be arguing that worldlines are not in motion relative to one another. Nobody has ever been arguing this. Instead, it is the case that the relation between points on the worldline of an object, and points on the worldline of an observer, are what we call relative motion.

Morbert

roosh wrote:

EDIT: if you have two lines which are at angles to each other, without any movement of something along those lines, or of the lines themselves, there will be no relative motion; two static lines, at angles to each other, do not permit relative motion, regardless of the underlying structure.

But that's the point I'm making. Relative motion is not inherent motion.

To take your above example: Slice up the lines into a series of moments. In each moment, there are two dots, which are the locations at which the moments intersect the lines. Under a presentist interpretation, we say the two dots are what are real, and not the lines. The distance between the two dots is changing, and we construct a parameter called time to describe this change.

A relativist says: I observe the distance between the two dots to be x, under my coordinate system. Under the coordinate system of my past self, the two dots are a distance y apart. There is a quantity (x-y)/dt that I will call relative motion.

You are arguing that relative motion is not possible under General Relativity, and in a way you are right. General Relativity says relative motion is illusory insofar as it is a coordinate phenomenon, emerging from the relation between an observer and an object, and the observer's past and the object's past.

In short: The lines aren't in motion. They are atemporal. But if we use coordinate systems to slice up the lines into "moments", we can draw relations between these moments that we call relative motion.

triocha

Everything can be said to be the centre of the universe where ever it/who is at that point.
That point can be and most often is (in my experience anyways, the universe revolves around me and I am the most important thing to my existance so I consider myself as the universe experiencing itself).
Absolute Motion is a mind illusion. It is not a real thing.

Masteroid

Morbert wrote: »

There are multiple incorrect statements in your post. The Higgs mechanism is not a force, for example, and it is certainly not responsible for the gravitational force. But to avoid getting into another wild goose chase: As I said before, the Higgs field is a Lorentz-invariant field. It therefore does not, in any way, necessitate absolute motion on a physical or metaphysical level.

[edit] - Perhaps the confusion lies with the fact that massless particles must travel at the speed of light. You can define this as absolute motion if you are very specific about what you mean: "The speed of the massless particles will be observed to be c for all observers." In other words, the relative motion of the particle, with respect to an arbitrary observer, will always be c. This definition does not necessitate any physical or metaphysical state of rest, since all observers would measure c.

I am probably making too many assumptions about the adequacy of my use of language.

And I certainly don't want to embark on a wild goose chase.

I know I'm a little 'alternative' but I do want to be scientific about it. I have this picture of the universe where I've tried to exclude as many factors and variables as possible in order to create a somewhat idealised starting point for consideration.

And wanting to be scientific, I have tried to reconcile my picture with Einstein. What do we mean by 'no (rest) mass'? Well, we're talking about 'inertial' systems, aren't we? I also wanted to retain strict symmetry and to satisfy Newton that if nothing changes, it stays the same.

If we look at the universe today we can see that it is not stable. It is in a chaotic phase, if you will, and if the chaotic state is the most stable it gets then any starting point should suffice for a model. And we don't know if there is a possible perfect equillibrium for the universe. Of course, then determinism could account for everything quite easily and explain the origin by making the philosophical point that the universe is simply the only possible configuration due to the effect of not being caused, i.e., any 'cause' would have resulted in a different 'effect' and a different universe would exist.

It may be that this is the case and our universe is the one without any applied law, a true anarchist, but it's not very satisfying way to arrive at such a conclusion.

My approach was to try to visualise the 'end-point' of the universe by thinking of all matter as being uniformly distibuted and being so diffuse that photon emission/absorption has ceased. Signals no longer propogate and nothing interacts. And any photons that weren't absorbed simply go off and tickle the void. At least, that's how I think of a 'dead' universe.

So I chose this as my start-point. I wanted to see if there was a way to disrupt that end-point such that there would be another big bang, that symmetry could break.

Obviously, that's an interesting question but it's a little beside the point. I was trying to visualise a model of the universe where the end-point is indistiinguishable from the start-point and it seems sensible to say that anything that exists at the scale of a fully expanded dead universe should have a counterpart at the scale of creation. In musical terms, it is as it the start and end points are an octave apart on a scale that has an infinite compass.

So I settled on this: at the origin of the big bang every point in spacetime can be represented as a kind of primeval photon with an associated quanta of energy. Every point in spacetime is identical in all respects and the sum of the energies of all these 'photons' is equal to the energy available to the universe. This number is conserved so therefore any photons that are lost to the large scale universe represents a loss of momentum to the system.

Isn't that interesting? I'm trying to describe the start point of the universe as being the same as the end point but with slightly less energy.

Which, of course, seems to have it backward as surely the universe started with more energy than it finished with?

But it makes sense, why should a big bang occur at all? Shouldn't we expect that the universe is destined to spend an eternity in some state of equillibrium? To decay and die as everything must?

Well maybe it can't.

When I got to thinking of spacetime and energy all occupying a single point, I was led to try and come up with a configuration where energy can move but no point in spacetime can move relative to any other and the only thing that seems to work is: spacetime is in motion. The universe is in motion and this motion can be converted to photons.

If I now add that the number of points in spacetime is conserved and that a point in space that is not occupied by a 'photon' is not a point in spacetime then the picture is complete.

Obviously photons don't actually escape from the universe, they simply represent a changing configuration of spacetime.

If it were shown that the apparent mass of the universe is equivalent to loss of momentum of the spacetime/energy continuum then the mass deficit problem of the universe becomes solvable: the deficit is stored in the momentum of spacetime/energy continuum which is good news since it means that the universe may have always existed and always will.

Could the universe be in motion and might the fact that it is have consequences regarding its origin?

Surely knowledge of absolute motion could help us derive the total energy of the universe. God could be audited to make sure He made it all out of nothing - and if He did, then 'nothing' must be made out of 'motion' and absolute motion must be God.