From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Date: Tue Jun 23 1998 - 23:14:14 MDT
At 11:12 PM 6/23/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:
>> You seem to be under the impression that your
>> scenario has violated the symmetry of measure,
>> that A measures "smaller" free from reference
>> to something "larger" than the smaller. There
>> are 2 observers that can make 4 valid measure-
>> ments, that's 8 measurements in all, but your
>> chart only includes half of them, as you say:
>No, there is smaller, and there is larger. However,
>there is no POSITIVE in this example. That's the difference.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IAN: Dan, in the difference between -1
and 0 there IS a POSITIVE, just observe:
0 - (-1) = 1
0 minus -1 = difference of POSITIVE 1. The
difference is also negative: -1 - 0 = -1,
and the net difference is 1 + (-1) = 0.
It is just as valid for A to say, "B shrunk
(-) in size relative to me," as it is for A
to say, "I grew (+) in size relative to B,"
in fact, they are the same statements!
FACT: (+) and (-) are *equally* indicated!
>> IAN: That's half, here are all measurments:
>>
>> After B passed by A near the speed of light,
>> A filled out this chart of all differences:
>>
>> A B
>> ______
>> A | 0 -1 |
>> | |
>> B | 1 0 |
>> --------
>
>Funny how this chart is different from the others you've provided before,
>yet you claim to be repeating yourself. <sigh> I guess that's to be
>expected.
IAN: Get serious, each diagram is defined.
The matrix you presented sums half of all
measurements from BOTH observers. The matrix
above, as stated, are derived only from A.
It is just as valid for A to say, "B shrunk
in size relative to me," as it is for A to
say, "I grew in size relative to B," in
fact, they are the same statements!
>> (AA) Difference between A and A = 0
>> (AB) Difference between A and B = A is 1 larger
>> (BA) Difference between B and A = B is -1 smaller
>> (BB) Difference between B and B = 0
>
>Unless you're defining relativity differently from the way I am (which
>wouldn't surprise me one bit), you can't have A find AB, and CERTAINLY not
>BB.
IAN: If we can measure the difference between
the thing we are in relative to the thing we
are in (=0), we can measure anything we see
relative to that same thing, and use it as
a zero point of departure for measure. So
claiming "A can't measure (B,B)" is baseless.
The fact that measurement is relative means
simply that where we place our zero point
of measure IS RELATIVE, is ARBITRARY. There
is no rule that says you cannot assume that
you are in motion (non zero) even though your
at rest (0) with respect to your self. Your
argument seeks to prohibit valid measurements.
>AB is not a measurement which A can make: it can only make BA and
>infer that AB must be its negative. Similarly, it could infer that BB
>would be 0, but no measurement which A can make will show this.
>
>How can I say this? Well, think about how A is making a measurement: it
>takes itself, which is zero, and it compares itself against others. A can
>observe these differences. But could A measure A from B's perspective
>this way? No. Indeed, if A tried to use B's actual perspective, you'd
>get my non-zero chart. Instead, A must infer that if A perceives B to be
>smaller and A to be larger, B must perceive the same thing. This
>inference is valid in Newtonian mechanics, but as we can see in this case
>it is not: B has a different bottom row than A would infer.
IAN: Dan, listen to me: I'm NOT saying that
A is measuring himself from B's perspective
when I say that "(AB) difference = larger." A
is measuring the relative size of two entities
before him. 1 is larger (Hello!) than the other.
A does NOT have to see A from B's perspective
to accurately observer that "I am larger."
Observe the equality of these statements:
"You're smaller(-) than me" = "I am larger(+) than you."
"You're smaller(-) than me" = "I am larger(+) than you."
There is no reference frame shifting involved
in my analysis. That's what you are missing in
what I'm saying. A can make BOTH of the statements
above, and the larger statement defines the positive
that you've been arguing is not valid, but clearly is.
**************************************************************
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 - 14:49:13 MST