Special Relativity creates Logical Paradoxes & Physical Impossibilities

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I know it's also off topic, so Jerry will probably add it to the relativity thread.
Yep, as you can see, it's been moved. I hope everybody's OK with the way I've been handling the thread management tool. I'm a little concerned that if I opened up permissions so that more people could move threads around, we'd end up with chaos.
 
I wondered why you had not brought up the question of the patent. That is my fault.
Yet Zeilinger, ein dumpfes Kraut, supports SR and its claim of no faster-than-light signalling! This despite the fact that I used his own work to prove the viability of my US Patent #7,135,700, the article being Alois Mair, Alipasha Vaziri, Gregor Weihs & Anton Zeilinger, "Entanglement of the Orbital Angular Momentum States of Photons", Nature 412 (19 July 2001) 313-316. Just look at figure 4, where the data shows (and the deduced images would reveal) that movement of the hologram on one photon stream has an effect on the other stream of photons (the one photon stream being quantum-entangled with the other photon stream). His work flatly contradicts SR yet Herr Doofusman cannot see it!
I was wrong on one number which is now corrected above.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Yes, Jerry, I accept your first comments above - that the academic viewpoint merely obscures the reality of the Basilides-Saturninus connection, otherwise obvious from the three heresiologists (Irenaeus, Hippolytus & Epiphanius).

As for the last point, indeed I would have accepted your criticism as the underlined point is trite, even bland...
No, just the idea that individuals are effected or influenced by their social environment. Your statement is an overstated "straw man", as opposed to Carrier's original point which should be completely non-controversial, if not downright trite.
...but the assertion on your part as to overstatement rests only on your belief in the benignity of Einstein's relativity* and Carrier's presumed ignorance of the details and implications of Einstein's relativity theory, given that it is commonly believed in.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*In Clark's biography of Einstein p. 422 he quotes Einstein's "modest" reply (on the very weekend of the Wall St. Crash in 1929) deflecting a claim as to his greatness.
Einstein said:
I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.
IOW Einstein does not merely believe the trite observation that "individuals are effected or influenced by their social environment". Rather, Einstein's "intersectionality" is that everything - every human thought, behavior and action - is predetermined by the universe itself (given Einstein's Spinozan atheism). That is why Carrier's pigeon-brained invocation of Einstein's relativity implies much more than the trite comment that you have interpreted it as meaning.

This is what Einstein (and the original Protestantism of Luther's pessimism and Calvin's optimism) is all about. Tell us that everything is predetermined (so as to absolve himself and his cronies from blame in advance) then speculate to your heart's & wallet's content in finance and physics - then ultimately force the results down the necks of the ignorant masses!
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Einstein said:
Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control.
This quote exemplifies Einstein's famous rejection of quantum theory and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It has nothing to do with relativity. Galilean and Newtonian physics were just as deterministic as Einstein's relativistic physics. Whereas nowadays, nobody believes this anymore.
 
Many different presumptions and claims are evident here.
This quote exemplifies Einstein's famous rejection of quantum theory and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Very true, but that is because of the three positions/interpretations of quantum theory, Einstein took to type A, the 'hardball' or point-particle interpretation of quantum theory.

Type A - local realism (point-particle interpretation of Popper & Einstein)
Type C - Complementarity (Bohr-Heisenberg's dualistic interpretation where wave and particle are two interpretations linked via dialecticism, flipping from one argument to the other while invoking mutually refuting conceptions)
Type B - Nonlocal physical reality (Bohm-Blokhintsev - this being the only correct interpretation since the quantum objects are treated as having extension in space rather than being "probability clouds" and/or point-particles.)

The point-particle type A interpretation is that of Einstein's relativity where everything is reduced to...
It has nothing to do with relativity.
...abstract dimensionless point-particles. Hence the interpretation of quantum theory has EVERYTHING to do with the perversions of Einstein's relativity since the latter has polluted the former.
Galilean and Newtonian physics were just as deterministic as Einstein's relativistic physics. Whereas nowadays, nobody believes this anymore.
False. Galileo's physics was not deterministic since he attributed extension to objects - allowing for internal content and motion in moving objects (e.g. people in ships) - totally unlike Einstein's abstractions. Newton though is ambiguous, since his nonsensical idea of absolute space allowed Einstein to pollute science through justifying time dilation and length contraction (TD & LC) by unphysical applications of abstract mathematics - a situation that you cannot seem to grasp, Jerry.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
(Bohm-Blokhintsev - this being the only correct interpretation since the quantum objects are treated as having extension in space rather than being "probability clouds" and/or point-particles.)
I can't find any evidence the Blokhintsev endorsed Bohm's view. Bohm's name doesn't even appear in this survey of Blokhintsev's relevant work.

Wikipedia quotes Bohm as arguing that quantum states are deterministic. So, since you are trying to show that the universe is non-deterministic, wouldn't your politics require you to back the Heisenberg interpretation? Isn't it lucky for you that the Bohm interpretation hasn't won much support, inasmuch as no evidence has ever surfaced regarding hidden variables that would allow a deterministic analysis of quantum physics?

False. Galileo's physics was not deterministic since he attributed extension to objects - allowing for internal content and motion in moving objects (e.g. people in ships)
What did Galileo say, exactly? Did he believe that "people in ships" posses some quality of will and self-determination, which distinguishes them from mere planets that move mechanistically? I suppose it's possible that this is what he thought, but it's not what people usually mean by Galilean physics.

Newton though is ambiguous, since his nonsensical idea of absolute space allowed Einstein to pollute science through justifying time dilation and length contraction (TD & LC) by unphysical applications of abstract mathematics - a situation that you cannot seem to grasp, Jerry.
My "grasp on the situation" indicates that TD & LC are experimentally proven facts, and that Einstein (and other great physicists of his time) showed that they could be modeled and, in a sense, explained by abstract mathematics.

And that you, Mr. Badly, use your denialist position regarding this settled physics, in support of your strange neo-fascist politics.
 
Last edited:
The reason is that Blokhintsev was older than Bohm and espoused his ideas rather earlier.
I can't find any evidence the Blokhintsev endorsed Bohm's view. Bohm's name doesn't even appear in this survey of Blokhintsev's relevant work.
Bohm was an American working on QT (quantum theory). He could read Russian though Blokhintsev later said that Bohm's work was original and that he Blokhintsev had little influence. Bohm was in turmoil at the time - accused and convicted by the Un-American Activities Committee, stripped of his citizenship and dumped on a one-way flight to Sao Paulo!

Junkipedia wouldn't know...
Wikipedia quotes Bohm as arguing that quantum states are deterministic. So, since you are trying to show that the universe is non-deterministic, wouldn't your politics require you to back the Heisenberg interpretation? Isn't it lucky for you that the Bohm interpretation hasn't won much support, inasmuch as no evidence has ever surfaced regarding hidden variables that would allow a deterministic analysis of quantum physics?
...since it confuses the two types of "hidden variable" interpretations, the Popper-Einstein point-particle type A interpretation, with the type B (Bohm-Blokhintsev) interpretation which is non-deterministic but causal. (Bohm's determinism rather resides in his later silly notion of the 'Implicate Order', a way to try to avoid the indeterminism inherent in QT) The Heisenberg interpretation - by which words you presumably mean the Copenhagen Interpretation (type C) - is agnostic on the question since it DENIES any deeper physical reality, asserting instead that "the maths" is all there is, opening the way to arbitrariness and acausality.
What did Galileo say, exactly? Did he believe that "people in ships" posses some quality of will and self-determination, which distinguishes them from mere planets that move mechanistically? I suppose it's possible that this is what he thought, but it's not what people usually mean by Galilean physics.
Many people even in his day thought of the planets as gods, their motion relative to the stars evidence of their freely-caused motion. Galileo did not obsess on the issue whether such planets had inhabitants - since the Earth itself does not have a mind to think with - but he certainly accepted that people had agency i.e. so-called "Free will" and self-determination, such that they were not puppets predetermined by the motion of the universe as a whole.

Your grasp on the facts about SR is woeful...
My "grasp on the situation" indicates that TD & LC are experimentally proven facts, and that Einstein (and other great physicists of his time) showed that they could be modeled and, in a sense, explained by abstract mathematics.
...especially as there is no experimental proof for LC whatsoever, just a false logical trail extending from Newton's absolute space to the stagnant aether, these invoking absolute motion whose nonexistence proven by the MMX is then reinterpreted by invoking LC (in order to retain the BS of "absolute motion", a "materialist" substitute for God). The mathematical extension of this by Poincare was to invoke TD, creating yet more complications such as, for two mutually moving clocks: "clock A is slower than clock B" yet "clock B is slower than clock A". And you call abstract paradoxical tripe like that 'genuine science'????????!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Philipp Lenard was also a Noble-prizewinner, but he too, saw that Einstein's SR was bunk!

And I have already shown to you that the TD experimental claims are false - due to faulty presumptions and logic - since they do not allow for equal path lengths for the particles to decay, so falsely explain that the particles detected lower in the atmosphere have survived due to TD, rather than admitting that the atmosphere mass-equivalent material (water or iron) is NOT an adequate substitute for the difference in length from the upper atmosphere generation site to the upper detectors and lower detectors, falsifying the claim that the greater detection of particles beneath the covering material (water or iron) is SOLELY due to the relative lack of TD, allowing slower particles through. Rather, the upper detectors should be at the same altitude as the lower detectors but have a vacuum for travel equal in length to the difference in altitude between upper and lower detectors. Only in this way could you even be allowed to suggest a contribution from Einstein's TD. However, the true facts causing the difference in detection rates are two only: the rapid decay rate of such particles (necessitating equal path lengths for genuine experimentation) and the collision with atmospheric particles - and their liquid or solid equivalents - reducing the detection rate at the lower detectors. Einstein's TD is superfluous and nonsensical - like Monty Python's parrot which sits on its perch because it has been nailed there, rather than having flown up of its own free will through genuine scientific endeavor.

Your lack of concentration on the details and so not seeing the difference thus blinds you to the deeper issues of science and philosophy as you are so ready to accept el cheapo answers - such as those served up by Noam Chomsky and Lawrence Krauss.
And that you, Mr. Badly, use your denialist position regarding this settled physics, in support of your strange neo-fascist politics.
Because the left's claims of fundamental human equality are also superfluous and nonsensical when one attempts to create a practical politics, serving only to confuse and disempower rather than elucidate.

After all, even George Orwell, a dedicated anti-Fascist who had worked as a policeman in Burma, then part of British India, admitted that a Fascist politics would really work - especially nowadays in that Leninism, Anarchism and Reformism have crumbled or are crumbling across the world.
Orwell-Lion&Unicorn said:
Essays, Journalism & Letters Vol. 2 p. 81: The Nazis aim in effect at setting up a kind of caste system, with four main castes corresponding rather closely to those of the Hindu religion. At the top comes the Nazi Party, second come the mass of the German people, third come the conquered European populations. Fourth and last are to come the colored peoples, the 'semi-apes' as Hitler calls them, who are to be reduced quite openly to slavery.

However horrible this system may seem to us, it works. It works because it is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker to stand in its way.
Now you see that Hitler lost ONLY because of his racism (i.e. specifically in not supporting Ukrainian rebels and General Vlasov) - which is also the reason the Far Right is losing in the USA. But education will eventually overcome this block - while the Left babble on incoherently, inside and outside the debate controlled by the Frank'n'Furtive School's graduates: i.e. the Cultural Marxist Clown College (a.k.a. Bonko Halal for subverting NOI members).

Yours faithfully
Claude Badley

PS: Perhaps I need to add here that the issues are not the seemingly abstract and trivial ones about mutually moving clocks and rods but the very nature of space and time - fundamental conditions of our very existence! Any correct scientific understanding of the world cannot afford to allow space and time to be degraded to mere 'manifestations' of matter - i.e. the fraud of ontological monism, the notion that materialist philosophy means that everything is reduced to ONE thing, matter.

Space and time are each ontologically separate from matter. Matter is in space which in turn is in time: this fundamental principle (two principles - one re space, one re time) have been utterly discarded by Einstein's sophistry and replaced by the Spinozan (i.e. modern Jewish) pantheist fantasy whereby everything is predetermined and thus has no cause at all since whatever happens is arbitrary anyway and hence fundamentally incomprehensible. By surrendering to Einstein's BS without thinking about it, you have already given up the political struggle - just as the modern Marxists have with their preaching of proletarian egalitarianism - since you cannot think clearly to begin with.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Now you see that Hitler lost ONLY because of his racism (i.e. specifically in not supporting Ukrainian rebels and General Vlasov) - which is also the reason the Far Right is losing in the USA. But education will eventually overcome this block - while the Left babble on incoherently, inside and outside the debate controlled by the Frank'n'Furtive School's graduates: i.e. the Cultural Marxist Clown College (a.k.a. Bonko Halal for subverting NOI members).
As you have presented it here, this is a non sequitur, as Hitler lost for other reasons, among which was that his professional general corps understood that his victory was impossible to achieve, Ukrainians or not. Hitler's surface motivations were only that, crass manipulation as a cover story to achieve what was achieved ... modern Israel, the EU, and the next alignment of the chessboard.

There is no such thing as settled science, only the political sciences du jour, like perversely calling people who believe in climate change Climate Change Deniers, or stating that relatively Cold Fusion is fake, when clearly it is not so. Cold Fusion was labeled so because of political and financial reasons.

Cosmology is in crisis today because the latest rabbit hole fad paradigms, such as dark matter and energy, are being shown to be untenable.

What is NOI?

Since you are admittedly not of pure and lofty blood Mr. Badley, what caste will you attain to? What caste was that fucking drug addled moron, sex pervert, con man, Adolf Hitler part of? Albeit he did achieve his assigned task, I'll give him that much.

Orwell-Lion&Unicorn said:
However horrible this system may seem to us, it works. It works because it is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker to stand in its way.
It 'works' because it is 1) planned, and 2) it is designed to achieve world-conquest?

What is the difference here between these and apparently you versus the Zionists? I would say that you are a crypto-Zionist, as well as a crypto-Catholic. For aren't you merely advocating for a return to the feudal caste system of the ancien regime? Are your Mandaean friends of this persuasion as well?

In America, at least, there is the acronym TMI, for Too Much Information. This above is TMI for your propaganda efforts here.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
the type B (Bohm-Blokhintsev) interpretation which is non-deterministic but causal. (Bohm's determinism rather resides in his later silly notion of the 'Implicate Order', a way to try to avoid the indeterminism inherent in QT)
Who is better qualified to say what the Bohm interpretation is, than Bohm himself? If he characterizes his view as "determinism" what gives you the right to gainsay him, at the same time as you rely on his authority?

the Copenhagen Interpretation (type C) - is agnostic on the question since it DENIES any deeper physical reality, asserting instead that "the maths" is all there is,
This would be the Mermin-Dirac-Feynman "instrumentalist interpretation", i.e. Shut Up And Calculate. It's a joke, in other words. "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!!"

Philipp Lenard was also a Noble-prizewinner, but he too, saw that Einstein's SR was bunk!
Funny you should mention Hitler's "Chief of Aryan Physics", who was obviously blinded by his hatred of "Jewish science". Is this the best you can come up with by way of an authority for your views?

I have already shown to you that the TD experimental claims are false - due to faulty presumptions and logic
No, you have made this claim, and I disagreed. I briefly explained my reasoning above in these posts:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/special-relativity-creates-logical-paradoxes-physical-impossibilities.2569/post-13479

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/special-relativity-creates-logical-paradoxes-physical-impossibilities.2569/post-13514

I'm comfortable with my own understanding that the experimental claims for TD are probably valid, although I concede that reaching this conclusion requires a certain level of arrogance on my part.

I simply don't believe it's worth my time to follow you further down this rabbit hole.

However, for the sake of discussion I would concede to "agree to disagree", and see where you're going with this.

perversely calling people who believe in climate change Climate Change Deniers
We both know full well that the term "Climate Change Denier" refers to persons who deny the reality and/or importance of MMGW. In common usage, it has nothing to do with a person's view about naturally occurring climate change, which is not denied by anybody. So I don't understand why you're still beating this dead horse.

stating that relatively Cold Fusion is fake, when clearly it is not so.
I've certainly argued strenuously, at this website, that Cold Fusion is a reality. But I wouldn't go jumping to the conclusion that the arguments I've presented are correct!! I feel that this material is very speculative, and ultimately I'm not sure whether the theory and experimental results are true or not.

There is no such thing as settled science...
What about the spherical earth? Are you abandoning that?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
What about the spherical earth? Are you abandoning that?
I was just seeing if you were awake.

And, I was too lazy to elaborate more. I felt justified after watching some Nobel Prize winner from Cambridge(?) say that, but he was referring to the extremes of physical phenomenology, and no doubt Climate Science (if I properly read his mind).
We both know full well that the term "Climate Change Denier" refers to persons who deny the reality and/or importance of MMGW. In common usage, it has nothing to do with a person's view about naturally occurring climate change, which is not denied by anybody. So I don't understand why you're still beating this dead horse.
We know that now ... as in Now. But you were recently claiming that many scientists were such deniers when clearly they weren't. The term was employed to smear people so as to garner support from the peanut gallery.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
You were complaining to me that certain skeptic scientists didn't believe in climate change, when clearly they did. The only pertinent issues are (1) the extent to which CO2 is responsible for whatever warming has (2) actually occurred recently, versus (3) other IPCC ignored causes of 'change'.

What amazes me here is that despite Claude's and your differences on Einstein and such, that you both ended up on the same side of this intersectional issue. I'm guessing that Claude will answer that you have somehow made two serial errors to arrive at the same position as he has, while I have made either one or three to arrive at the opposition.

Or, does this merely disprove his overarching thesis of ontological dependence?

Nobody really knows what an atom is, or its quirky quarks, or gravity, or how a photon can be particle yet with no mass. Maybe Hubble was right to suspect the Red Shift? Maybe the noise in the MMX was not noise, but signal?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
You were complaining to me that certain skeptic scientists didn't believe in climate change, when clearly they did. The only pertinent issues are (1) the extent to which CO2 is responsible for whatever warming has (2) actually occurred recently, versus (3) other IPCC ignored causes of 'change'.
I believe you called me out very early on for using the word "denier", and I've been scrupulously using "skeptic" since then, except perhaps in certain egregious cases. I don't really want to read through the whole thread to search for instances where I might have sinned in using the terminology inappropriately.

And as you know, regarding the "pertinent issues", I've argued that (2) there has indeed been measurable warming; that (1) industrial release of CO2 is largely if not entirely responsible; and (3) that changes in solar insolation or solar wind are highly unlikely causal factors; we haven't experienced any major volcanic events or asteroid strikes lately; and other archaeologically significant factors such as Milankovitch would seem to be pointing in the opposite direction, towards a new ice age, if anything. Does that cover it? If someone argues against these three key planks of the MMGW theory, I call them a skeptic when it comes to MMGW.

Nobody really knows what an atom is, or its quirky quarks, or gravity, or how a photon can be particle yet with no mass.
What would it mean to "really know" these things? Yet the concepts are amazingly useful.

Maybe Hubble was right to suspect the Red Shift?
You're starting to get above my pay grade here. According to this paper by Sandage (cited in Wishy-Washy Pedia) Hubble claimed that the universe was expanding in a 1929 paper which almost everyone in science accepted immediately, yet Hubble himself backtracked and argued after 1936 that the universe might be stable after all, in which case the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature." And it doesn't seem that he convinced anyone else. So maybe he was right at first, and maybe he was right later.

Do we claim to have enough bandwidth here to solve every scientific mystery? Is this relevant to Relativity, or is it a what-about-ism?

Maybe the noise in the MMX was not noise, but signal?
Isn't this a statistics problem, to separate the noise from the signal? Where is the basis for second-guessing this?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
And as you know, regarding the "pertinent issues", I've argued that (2) there has indeed been measurable warming; that (1) industrial release of CO2 is largely if not entirely responsible; and (3) that changes in solar insolation or solar wind are highly unlikely causal factors; we haven't experienced any major volcanic events or asteroid strikes lately; and other archaeologically significant factors such as Milankovitch would seem to be pointing in the opposite direction, towards a new ice age, if anything. Does that cover it? If someone argues against these three key planks of the MMGW theory, I call them a skeptic when it comes to MMGW.
See, you just changed the goal posts again. You've gone from climate change back to, not only global warming, but man-made global warming. I'm going to post something on the Globalist Warming thread about the admitted lack of lead versus lag correlation between CO2 levels and temperature where special pleading is invoked to claim that pokey Mr. Milankovich somehow tells CO2 to claim responsibility for heating that took place centuries to thousands of years later upon entering a new interglacial period.
What would it mean to "really know" these things? Yet the concepts are amazingly useful.
Yes, these inferential models are indeed useful, but should not be considered 'settled". Such is why Newton's Laws are not really 'laws', but rather model descriptions - that were found to need revision.
Do we claim to have enough bandwidth here to solve every scientific mystery? Is this relevant to Relativity, or is it a what-about-ism?
No, I personally don't have enough bandwidth left, and as we've discussed beofre I regret having added such a broad scope of topics to the forum. It's all relevant in the sense of the matter of what is settled. I'm not so certain that people like Tesla weren't correct when it comes to the aether.
Isn't this a statistics problem, to separate the noise from the signal? Where is the basis for second-guessing this?
No, this is not a classical case of examining a data set and separating the noise from the signal. We are talking about the interpretation of the bends in the graph line at both extremes. If one can casually dismiss them as noise, then you get our present cosmology, but if they are signal then we must trash our current cosmology. To me, and others the 'noise' looks like signal -- which should never have been dismissed.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
See, you just changed the goal posts again. You've gone from climate change back to, not only global warming, but man-made global warming.
I believe I've always been arguing that man-made global warming is a highly likely conclusion. I'm sorry if I've ever given any impression to the contrary.

As to skeptics, they come in all flavors. Some accept that MMGW is taking place, but think it's either a good thing, or not very important. Some accept that warming is taking place, but deny that it's man made. And then there are those that don't believe that warming is taking place at all, or who don't think that global average temperature is a coherent or meaningful concept.

As to skeptics who deny that the climate ever changes at all, I can't think of a single living example.

Such is why Newton's Laws are not really 'laws', but rather model descriptions - that were found to need revision.
I would say that Newton's Laws are perfectly valid within a limited scope.

[MMX] To me, and others the 'noise' looks like signal -- which should never have been dismissed.
Sadly, I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Top