And by the way, I still think your clock/train scenario supposed “contradiction in relativity” is bullshit. Perspective is what relativity is all about. From the perspective of light, there is no other “movement”, no “time” other than “self”. Light is the speed of change.
Lorentz changes are transformations in perceived measurements. Accounting for discrepancies based on distortions, like looking at the seabed through the shifting, waving water.
Does relativity NEED to be incorrect? Why?
Where do you get that bizarre idea? Newton didn’t even believe that light was a wave!
Newton’s discoveries were based on turning measurements into evidence.
James evidence that Einstein was wrong seems to be that James did not understand Einstein’s work.
Newton thought there was an objective reference, a “no motion” to which all motion referred. The idea of ether.
So we should ask how important this idea was to his discoveries. I would initially say: very important.
RM:AO is about being rational in the ontological construct, which is about what you care about (what affects you), not what might be theoretically true but irrelevant or inconsequential. Why would you care if something is said to exist, if it was already determined that it had no affect on anything that had any consequential affect upon you?
In any one ontology anything can be defined anyway you choose as long as you stick with that definition. In RM:AO, existence is defined by the property of affect. If it has affect, it exists. If has absolutely no affect, it doesn’t exist. That is the definition upon which RM:AO is built. If you want to use another definition of existence, you are free to do so. Just don’t try to mix your independent notions with those of RM:AO because you might get any bizarre misleading result. You would be mixing meters and feet or apples and oranges.
Then you need to get on that thread and prove your assertion, because the current participants aren’t cutting it. But realize that entire subject was (and to a degree still is) merely an intelligence test, but a very serious one. So try to avoid letting your emotional connections disturb your logic, else you will merely ramble endlessly against me and get no where. Authority appeal means nothing to me. I am all about logic, and so is that test.
Oh, I agree. And that is why I used an “almost observer photon” traveling only one infinitesimal slower than light. But even that isn’t the counter proof, merely another example that the logic of SR isn’t coherent.
Exactly. But when two observers watching the same scenario predict contrary results, they must accept that there is something like water distorting their perception and thus “the real truth” is NOT what they measure or perceive. The truth (actually in all cases throughout history) is only discovered through logic being applied to (or before) perception.
What “needs to be correct” is merely the participants will to be logical in place of their primitive tendency to be so emotional as to not be able to be logical (not being dishonest with (deceiving) oneself). The test is of the participants. No one cares about SR itself, not even those same fanatical participants. And RM isn’t the issue either. But RM is for the logical mind. All others will be the recipients of the influence (the followers), not the founders of it (the “masters”).
Over-passionate males (as well as females) already have a “master” controlling them, despite them not knowing it. Realize that the word “fe-male” merely means a “pliable-male”, softened. The story of Eve was not about the biologically female gender but rather the feminine of Mankind, the pliable, over-passionate.
RM:AO is for the masculine male, the thinkers and designers, the “true masters”, those who can be logical, not the followers of authorities (the “dogs”) or the enslaved. That is why that SR subject is “a test”. It is a test of male versus fe-male (over-emotional, pliable) minds and hearts.
In reality, it is asking, “Can you actually realize why a modern day authority cannot be correct (as it has never been in the past) and stand your ground against the vast pressure to simply go along with what you have been told?”
Actually, Newton was about constructing the ontology now called “physics” from the elements of “forces” and “objects”, most notably, “gravity”. Aether was Lorentz’s brainchild. The confusion that followed after Newton came from irrationality derived from the notion that perception supersedes logic, ie “magic” (“fe-man’s” lust to be God).
You must first know that logic supersedes perception and that all measurements are from perceptions. Without logic, no perception is possible. What was perceived that gave evidence with which logic could have told the real story (even if not already figured out) was things like an orbiting electron that wasn’t losing energy as every electromagnetic “law” would dictate that it must, the discovery that there are no “solid” objects and that all particles seem to be no more than “waves of energy”, the strange fact that such waves appear to be able to quantize for no discernible reason, the appearance of forces of any and every type that have no discernible means to extend and travel, yet do (which is what led to Lorentz’s aether theory - never actually proven to be wrong), the fact that despite 100 years of mathematics and experimenting the only other popular theories, Relativity and Quantum Physics, require the abandonment of logic itself (which then leaves all prior deductions invalid from day one).
There are probably countless other issues that I could site if I went to enough trouble. But the real evidence isn’t the perceptions nor confusions of 100-200 years ago, but rather the simple fact that there is no alternative to the “wavelets” and the fact that they end up explaining every single one of their experimental discoveries and mysteries including where it all came from to begin with.
The seemingly contrary “evidence” is merely the same issue as always, their measuring techniques have not been sufficient to discern the theory from the actuality merely because the theory is “close”, merely not quite there (Such as the Corrected Lorentz Factor).
A Man cannot “be convinced”. Convincing is for fe-men and animals. And you cannot convince a mule into being a thoroughbred. The only thing that one man can do for another is display the logic. The other man must then convince himself. A man cannot be told what to think, merely shown the reason to think it. And although there must always be exchange, query, and verification, if I have to argue very much in order to convince, I already know that I am not talking to a man.
It is all about having that “third eye” with which a man can see what the animals can never see. Animals; dogs, cats, snakes, can be trained and conditioned, “con-vinced”. But what do you think happens when you train a snake in the ways of a master, a man? Do you really imagine that he grows that third eye and loses the blindness that made him what he has always been?
The “mainstream” is merely Gabriel blowing his horn. Gabriel didn’t write the music. Gabriel has a master. It is that master that has to be shown. Gabriel will then play a different tune.
He “went wrong” in the exact same way all before him have. He (with some serious persuasion to do so) presumed in the hopes of claiming the prize of “finally knowing God” and saving Mankind from the false-flag terrorist rumor that if something wasn’t done immediately, all of mankind was at risk of falling into total chaos (the same strategy being used everyday since then - “clear and present danger + plausible deniability”). Thus he wrote the music that Gabriel has been playing ever since.
Truth was never the goal, but rather power over people, “convincing the animals” and thus the requirement to keep them as animals, lacking the sight of men, “feminizing” the world.
And here we see another example of James lying to us or really being amazingly ignorant. Every day, very precise adjustments to the global positioning system satellites are made on the basis of the Lorentz transformations. If they were wrong, this would show up in GPS.
There are so many applications out there where James could check to see if his cult theory could produce the right answer, yet he never does this. Why?
But his science doesn’t use this, because it cannot be observed and measured. He shows that we can do all that we want by assuming that the physical systems we investigate are not accelerating or are accelerating in a way that is approximately (relative to what we are looking at) parallel and at the same amount.
To me that seems rather more complicated.
I would say they were immensely important. He did a lot of good work. Many other good people took the ball and ran with it, so to speak, so there is a rich history of people building on Newton’s work and adding evidence to support it.
James,
I’m not paying too much attention to the drama going on between you and PhysBang, and I’m only half-ass reading through the discussion between you and MM, so if the questions I ask or the comments I make have been addressed already, please forgive me.
That’s all I need. 
I was kinda’ hoping you bite when I offered you my analysis of the suspended-object-in-space scenario (in which it has no affect nor is affected)–namely, about how in some sense such an object would have to at least affect you (in the sense that you’d have to be there to sense it if you are to conduct the thought experiment at all)–but instead you took a different angle: the why-should-we-care-if-it-doesn’t-affect-us angle. This is fine, but I think the you’re-always-affected-in-your-thought-experiments would be more powerful.
Anyway, I’m going to use it to add some substance to your definition.
Can we please move on to “affect upon affect”?
Good. On this thread, I ignore him. I had put him back on ignore (which doesn’t work until you log in), but on the other thread, I saw that he did finally attempt some math, so I have to give him a shot (although now he seems to be back to all mouth and no math).
That is fine for now, but if MM maintains interest, we might not be able to keep two discussions going (it can get really complicated). I have to say things in an order that is determined by you so I need to know what prior bits you already understand.
The RM:AO definition certainly doesn’t exclude that concern, but in the bottom line is merely that no one cares about things that are known to have absolutely no affect and in reality, the ability to affect is all anyone has ever really been taking about when they say, “exists” anyway.
Emm… okay, I’m there. Let me know when you get here. 
…whatchawannano?
Well, my GPS does often tell me that I’m driving in the middle of field when clearly I’m on the highway.
Yes, doesn’t this fall out of Galilean physics–the shoulder on which he stood?
However, I’d be interested in knowing how he accounted for acceleration in particular (as opposed to simply linear motion). He’d have to postulate something like a gravitation field, much like Einstein did, wouldn’t he? But then why is Einstein credited with this?
Just my 2 cents: absolute motion does not entail an aether.
James,
Well, I’m relatively clear on what you mean by “affect”–so what is it for there to be affect upon affect?
I’ll wait until you and PhysBang finish your issues.
To affect means to make a change. “Affect upon affect” merely means one affect changing another.
If there is affect, then there is an ability to affect, referred to as “Potential-to-Affect”, PtA. PtA is not a substance or a “thing” but rather merely a situation that allows for the affect to take place. If you cut the stem of an hanging apple, you just gave that apple the potential to fall. You changed its PtA. Newton examined the rate at which the apple falls. RM:AO is about why it falls at all.
Affect A has a PtA of 10 (just to give it an amount of ability in numbers).
Affect B has a PtA of 12.
Affect B is what affect A is going to change.
After merely that one affecting, affect B would have the PtA of 22 and affect A, having used its 10, would have the PtA of 0.
By definition, distance is measured by how directly one affect reaches another. The more affecting A might have to go through in order to get to B determines the “distance” between A and B. If B is merely one infinitesimal from A, they are said to be “touching” (but not at the exact same location, else they would be only one affect).
Immediately it can be seen that there is conservation of total affectance merely due to the definitions involved. And that relates to why in physics, there is “conservation of energy”. Energy is the ability to affect and is measured by how much potential to affect is present (“potential energy”) and how much affecting is taking place at the present (“kinetic energy”).
But note that one need not measure anything in order to know that the energy must be conserved. Merely the definitions provide the proof. Any measurements merely let you know that you are physically dealing with what you had defined. If your measurements didn’t work out it had to be either that you were not measuring what you thought (the energy) or that your measuring method is in error or not compatible with your ontology.
Yeah, but you don’t get the good GPS. Some of the neatest general relativity papers are delivered to the US Navy.
Most of the time that Newton delivers a theorem on the relationship of force to motion, he then develops a corollary that shows what happens when a similar situation happens to a system that is undergoing constant motion or constant acceleration. He shows that any effect would have to be minimal and thus that we can trust the relationship that holds in an absolute case to hold approximately in the case where there is acceleration. Very much picking up where Galileo left off.
The key insights with Newton were being able to turn measurements of motion into measurements of force in different ways. The magnitude and direction of a force can be measured by different properties of an orbit, for example, in relationships that hold even if that orbit is itself in an orbit. Not only that, but we can predict the distortions on that first orbit because of the greater orbit or because of the presence of masses nearby. So we can do away with some of the vagueness of approximation and get more and more accurate results of what forces are at play in the motions of a complicated system.
People used Newton’s techniques (with some improvement/refinement by later mathematicians and physicists) until the 20th C to refine predictions of the solar system. Newtonian physics predicts that, because of the influence of the other planets, the orbit of Mercury will drift by about 500/360 of a degree every century and this prediction is off by 43/360 of a degree. When Einstein introduced GR, it recovers all the Newtonian work and introduces that 43/360 (almost entirely from time dilation, if I remember correctly; it’s been a while since I’ve seen it worked through).
Ok, so he didn’t really account for acceleration, he just said it was a confounding variable that could throw our calculations off.
But I assume you’d say that the apple always has the potential to fall, and by cutting the stem, you simply increase it, correct? (and what do you increase it to? 100%?)
Can we apply this to a concrete scenario?
Suppose A is the falling of the apple from the tree. Suppose B is Newton getting a welt on the head from falling apples.
So if we say A has PtA 10, what does that mean? Does it mean it has 10 units of falling potential? Is this before or after you cut the stem?
No. As I stated on one of these threads, “RM doesn’t conflate potential with statistical possibility.” Nothing has the potential for doing anything until there is nothing stopping it from doing it. And if nothing is stopping it, then it is doing it. Cutting the stem merely removed the last thing keeping the apple from having the potential necessary to fall. Until it was cut, the stem had the potential to keep the apple from falling… and was doing so.
At every moment there is no potential for anything to happen that isn’t already happening.
On the rudimentary level that we are currently on, there is only positive and negative affect, not the different types of affect that we can talk about in the more complex arrangements of affects. So in your example of a concrete apple falling onto Newton, the apple had a “positive” potential of affect valued at “10”. Newton had a potential of coming up with an interesting way of propagating his story, also valued at “10”. The apple transferred its positive potential to Newton increasing his potential from only 10 to 22… just enough to get a story for idea-propagating completed.
In many cases, he was able to show how we could measure that acceleration based on how it threw our measurements off.
The history of the moon, post-Newton, is very much about turning accurate measurements of the moon’s orbit into measurements of the effect of the sun and the planets on the moon.
This is why we have a laser reflector on the moon. Accurate measurements of the orbit of the moon continue to test Newtonian theory (and its successor GR).
But there is always statistical possibility due to never knowing the actuality at the moment.
What are the units we’re talking about here? 10 what? Let’s say that the apple falling has PtA 10. How would I have to think of the scenario differently if we were to say it had PtA 20?
The “units” ARE “PtA”.
Base units are definitional, not experiential.
They are for like-comparisons.
If you are measuring the color red, you may assign units of “redness” or perhaps “rdns”. They don’t mean anything except in comparison to another of its own type, greater or lesser. If you had no experience with any kind of red, the distinction between 10 rdns and 20 rdns would mean nothing to you. That is why I stated what the potential for the apple and for Newton was in your example. Without stating something that you could relate to, the numbers are merely size comparisons, but you don’t know “of what”.
Theoretical physicists often get lost in their units and numbers and lose contact with anything real that they were intended to represent.