From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Date: Mon Jun 22 1998 - 12:56:29 MDT
Daniel Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu) wrote:
>> IAN: A reduction (-) of B in size by 1
>> unit relative to A (0) is expressed as
>> -1. -1 is LESS than 0, 0 is 1 more (+)
>> then -1, so in fact A has gotten larger!
>
>Relative to what? Not A or B.
IAN: If the only other thing is B,
A increased in size relative to B
in the fashion described above. The
simple fact that B appears to be
smaller than A means that A appears
to be larger than B to observer A.
Has A gotten larger than B? The only
way for A to know is look at B. If B
is smaller, then A has gotten larger.
The fact that both observers witness
the same thing does not break this
symmetry of relational structure.
Both observers see themselves
as larger than the other:
A B (how I appeared)
A 0 +
B + 0
and both observed the other as smaller:
B A (how the other appeared)
B 0 -
A - 0
and the sum of all valid measurements equals 0.
Nice try Dan, but time to find another counter,
I've already toppled this one three times now.
>There is not point where A increases relative to B, and THAT'S the truth.
IAN: Sorry, but that's just false and
I've already proved that it's false.
If the size of A = 1 and the size of A
= the size of B, but then B decreases
in size to .5, it is a fact that 1 is
LARGER than .5, and thus A has gotten
larger relative to B because B got
smaller relative to A. Simple.
Because B was also size 1, it could
be stated now that A = 1.5, for no
point of size-reference is absolute.
>> That the second matrix is valid is clearly
>> proven by the fact that -1 is less than
>> 0 and 0 is 1 more than -1. If we have 2
>> things in the universe, A and B, and B
>> gets smaller, it's equally true that A
>> gets larger, because size is relative.
>
>No, you don't understand. You're thinking in terms of Newtonian physics
>and not in the inherently non-intuitive terms of special relativity.
>Normally, when something gets smaller, something else gets larger relative
>to it; special relativity sys that when B appears smaller to A, A appears
>SMALLER to B, not larger. This is why it doesn't sum to 0: If B were
>actually shrinking, it would look like this:
>
>A B
>A 0 -C
>B +C 0
IAN: There is no absolute size, you cannot have
"got smaller" free from "got larger." Observer
A will measure the situation and see that there
are two sides of the relative change: he himself
got larger than B because B got smaller than A.
Your case represents the fallacy of atomism,
that we can have S (smaller) free from not-S.
**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."
Max Plank - Nobel physicist
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:12 MST