Jim says: This is a bit of an
unstructured rant, against this site (
link
opens in a new window):
Nasty
Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
which was recommended by ThatFatMoogle's talkback
in
this
page, but here goes...
The above
link
points to the worst kind of site, authoritative,
even entertaining, but don't be fooled! It is
written by a the pseudo-intellectual who thinks
he knows it all, when it is obvious from the
start that he hasn't got a clue what he's talking
about. Or if he does, then he's playing a cheap
game. He thinks that geniuses like Einstein,
Stephen Hawking, John Wheeler, Kip Thorn and
David Deutsche are less bright than himself,
and haven't considered the highly simplistic
and basically straw-man "arguments" the author
proposes. Alarm bells start ringing.
The writer of that page is attacking a Straw-man
in the way he is falsely accusing the scientists
of making arguments and then demolishing those
arguments. Its one of the oldest tricks in the
book. Maybe he does it to make himself look
clever to the uninitiated. For example, he erroneously
makes a claim that
relativists say that
things move in units of one second per second,
or similar. This is a wrongful accusation. Then
he attacks the relativists for making the claims
they
didn't make in the first place.
The fallacy of that page is that it conveniently
ignores the fact that time is relative. Time
feels the same for someone hypothetically going
back in time. If you travel down a hypothetical
pipe - a "wormhole" that leads to
the past, time still feels the same to you!
It's the same as falling into a black hole.
Time feels normal to you, even though to the
rest of the Universe you appear to be slowing
down. There is no "rate of change of time" needed.
Most of the objections he raises are nonsense.
For example "
It is dishonest and counterproductive
for relativists to teach young people that,
unlike Newton, they know what gravity is."
I'm not sure that relativists do say they
know
what gravity. On the contrary scientists freely
admit that we do not have a complete theory
of gravity yet, because the theory of gravity
breaks down in the quantum realm.
Another misleading concept that site provides
is the "arrow of time". The site claims this
is a dimensional direction, and hence ridicules
it. In reality the arrow of time is based in
thermodynamics. Disorder increases on average.
Eggs smash into a gooey mess, but the gooey
mess doesn't spontaneously reassemble into an
egg. If you film this and play the film backwards,
you *know* it is being run backwards! Hence
time has an arrow. This page throws up a load
of nonsense and then criticises the nonsense.
A cheap trick that is compelling to those who
are not knowledgeable enough about the New Physics
to realise it is a load of b8llocks. This page
reminds me of creationist sites debunking science,
although this site is much more subtle.
The site itself, when it provides its own theories,
quickly descends into total drivel. For example
"As in everything else in nature, there is
a yin-yang principle that underlies all including
the present (I personally prefer to call it
the NOW). What Mr. Carlin should have said is
that there is only the NOW and that it consists
of the immediate past and the immediate future.
The latter is continually unfolding into the
former. A particle undergoing change has an
immediate past state that will no longer be
and an immediate future state that is about
to become immediate past. In an unchanging particle,
its immediate past and future states are equal.
"
The site criticises carefully thought out science
by geniuses and then proceeds to spout utter
dreck!
I also found it nauseating how the author bravely
turns his fire on a kid: Here is what one or
my readers (19 year-old Preston Sumner) wrote
in this regard: "
I think the reason
so many latch onto an "arrow of time" is because
of the human mind. We store memories and information
in our brains, and so we have a "past" that
exists in our heads. All our lives we have this
mental function and never question it, and because
of this, it's easy to envision that the past
is actually "alive" and a co-existing plane
of existence of some sort. The concepts of past
and future become so engrained in our worldviews
that we can't separate ourselves from it. Sci-fi
also aids in this. "
Anti-relativity writer says:
"I often
marvel at the fact that young people can have
so much more insight into the nature of things
than some of society's most celebrated and admired
scientists and thinkers. Is it because the young
have not yet been completely indoctrinated into
the Borg-like hive mentality that is so prevalent
in society. A mind is terrible thing to assimilate."
Personally, I think the 19 year old makes much
more sense than his critic.
To conclude my rant, the site's argument is
like criticising people for claiming that nothing
can fly (when they didn't) and then ridiculing
the idea that nothing can fly.
- JE
ThatFatMoogles
Replies:
The message system on there isn't sufficient
to get a good thread going; feel free to paste
the following rebuttal :P :
"
He thinks that geniuses like Einstein, Stephen
Hawking, John Wheeler, Kip Thorn and David Deutsche
are less bright than himself, and haven't considered
the highly simplistic and basically straw-man
"arguments" the author proposes. Alarm bells
start ringing."
So you simply assume that his argument _obviously_
must be incorrect, because it opposes the views
of Hawking, Wheeler, et. all who propose the
possibility of time travel, using a space-time
model that precludes the possibility of motion
through time altogether. I do not understand
why you included Einstein's name, perhaps other
than as possible leverage for your personal
attacks against the Author, since he does not
argue against relativity on his page.
****
""""
I also found it nauseating how the author
bravely turns his fire on a kid: Here is what
one or my readers (19 year-old Preston Sumner)
wrote in this regard: "I think the reason so
many latch onto an "arrow of time" is because
of the human mind. We store memories and information
in our brains, and so we have a "past" that
exists in our heads. All our lives we have this
mental function and never question it, and because
of this, it's easy to envision that the past
is actually "alive" and a co-existing plane
of existence of some sort. The concepts of past
and future become so engrained in our worldviews
that we can't separate ourselves from it. Sci-fi
also aids in this. " Anti-relativity writer
says: "I often marvel at the fact that young
people can have so much more insight into the
nature of things than some of society's most
celebrated and admired scientists and thinkers.
Is it because the young have not yet been completely
indoctrinated into the Borg-like hive mentality
that is so prevalent in society. A mind is terrible
thing to assimilate." Personally, I think the
19 year old makes much more sense than his critic.
""""
If you read this section carefully, you will
see that his 'critic' is actually giving praise.
Before you go on a tirade denouncing something,
be sure you read it more carefully. Your entire
'argument' against this 'anti-relativity' page
seems to have been generated out of a stupor
one might ascribe to a religious zealot.
-ThatFatMoogle
Jim Responds:
Fair points ThatFatMoogle, good Sir, but you're
points seem at least as rhetorical as my own,
for example...
"
Your entire 'argument' against this
'anti-relativity' page seems to have been generated
out of a stupor one might ascribe to a religious
zealot."
But permit me to point out that my central thesis
stands,
that
site is a fallacy because of the movement
through space-time question - a straw-man attack,
hence my ire. You have not addressed this key
issue, I see, rather you have fussed about side
issues, you have plucked only the low hanging
fruit. So I think that my refutation of the
"nasty truth" site still stands, unless
you are able to shoot me down :)
What follows is an online chat discussion between
ThatFatMoogle, RabbitMunch (Who is a professional
physicist) and myself. (My alias is eadon-com).
- Jim
[RabbitMunch looks at the "
nasty
secret" site]
RabbitMunch: i'm not sure if this [
the
nasty secret site] is worth arguing against.
eadon-com: Rabbit is best qualified to
assess this site, being an expert in the field
ThatFatMoogles: i'm in trouble. :P
RabbitMunch: for one, of course you can
tranform to units in which velocity is dimensionless.
Even in special relativity, you say beta = v/c.
From then on you can express velocities as beta
rather than v. They will still follow the same
rules, but will be dimesionless.
ThatFatMoogles: but you aren't moving
through spacetime then? If you have a dimensionless
number
RabbitMunch: My boss collects letters
that crackpots send him. He posts the letters
outside his office.
eadon-com: what about the moving through
spacetime question rabbit?
ThatFatMoogles: is that page completely
wrong?
RabbitMunch: ok, ill read on
RabbitMunch: well he says, "Velocity
must be given in units of velocity such as meters
per second or whatever standard units are being
used. For this reason, there is no motion in
spacetime."
ThatFatMoogles: yeah he's talking about
dt/dt
RabbitMunch: ok, what is wrong with dt/dt?
ThatFatMoogles: x * dt/dt = x?
ThatFatMoogles: it doesn't mean anything?
RabbitMunch: sure it does. it mean that
for a paricle travelling along a geodesic, time
passes as unity rate with respect to itself
RabbitMunch: but that is obvious
ThatFatMoogles: it travels at 1?
RabbitMunch: yes, 1 second for a clock
in the same frame will pass as 1 second for
the observer.
ThatFatMoogles: 1 second/second
RabbitMunch: again, really obvious, right?
ThatFatMoogles: 1 second per 1 second?
When will it not pass as 1?
RabbitMunch: when an observer in one
frame is observing a clock in another frame.
ThatFatMoogles: one major point of his
argument is that dt/dt is meaningless
RabbitMunch: well i just gave its meaning
eadon-com: time is relative, so dt for
one observer is quantifiably different to dt
for a different observer in a different gravitational
field or a different speed or what have you.
So dt/dt need not be 1
ThatFatMoogles: what you are taking the
dt of is a wordline on a spacetime manifold
chart, correct?
ThatFatMoogles: worldline
eadon-com: then it is unity i suppose
ThatFatMoogles: but the 1 doesn't mean
anything. The worldline is a history of the
evolving of the particle with respect to time
RabbitMunch: ok, let me give you the
general equation. You say u (bold) is a 4-vector
giving the velocity of a particle. Now u will
involve an observer and the moving particle,
right?
ThatFatMoogles: only the particle. How
does the particle 'move' through space-time
eadon-com: I'm saying that the particle
doesn't move through spacetime, and relativitists
do not claim it does either, hence that site
is hogwash. But i am saying that spacetime itself
*can* move
RabbitMunch: well if the perticle is
the only object in the universe, then sure it
is hard to say how it moves through space-time.
But do you really think this is the case?
ThatFatMoogles: the particle is observing
itself
eadon-com: spacetime is merely a static
plot in 4D rabbit? xyzt. So a particle cannot
move in spacetime by definition
RabbitMunch: it can be static.
ThatFatMoogles: the vector is t,x(t),y(t),z(t)?
RabbitMunch: yea, the velocity will be
u where u_v = dx_v/dtau
RabbitMunch: tau is the proper time of
the particle
eadon-com: [no movement is allowed in
4D spacetime] because movement is represented
by a static vector in spacetime
RabbitMunch: yes, it can.
ThatFatMoogles: if it is moving through
spacetime, what is the evolutionary parameter?
RabbitMunch: evolutionary parameter?
RabbitMunch: huh?
ThatFatMoogles: the worldline has to
be moving with respect to something then?
eadon-com: that site talks about time
as being an evolutionary parameter, fancy words
to put the uninitiated off guard
ThatFatMoogles: isn't that what time
is?
eadon-com: evolutionary? time doesn't
evolve anymore than distance evolves
ThatFatMoogles: it is a parameter through
which to consider particles through space to
evolve
RabbitMunch: is the question here, "what
is time?"?
ThatFatMoogles: time is the abstract
inverse to change?
eadon-com: the question is, we have a
4D framework, with dimensions xyzt and all events
past present and future can be plotted in that
coordinate frame. those events that are plotted
cannot move within that 4D frame. that is the
question. Is that assumption right or wrong?
ThatFatMoogles: the particle is moving
in 3D, at a certain rate, I am not arguing that.
I argue that it is NOT moving through 4D
RabbitMunch: ok, i see.
ThatFatMoogles: if those are the 4D we
are only looking at, at the moment
RabbitMunch: so this really is a philosophical
question.
ThatFatMoogles: what? :P
eadon-com: no its a physics question
ThatFatMoogles: i thought it was a physics
question :P
RabbitMunch: because the same question
could be asked for any deterministic system.
eadon-com: the guy on the site claims
that relativitists claim that particles move
through spacetime. is this correct? That is
the key point here!
RabbitMunch: I mean a train leaves NY
at 6:00 and passes through DC at 10:00 did it
really move in 4D space?
eadon-com: you tell us!
ThatFatMoogles: of course not, because
you can't travel through time
RabbitMunch: well strickly speaking,
its path was fixed from the beginning. But how
does this lead to a contradiction?
ThatFatMoogles: the site is arguing against
people who claim it is possible to go back in
time. Using a model that precludes any possibility
of motion
RabbitMunch: well it seems to be saying
much more than that.
ThatFatMoogles: it does :P
eadon-com: if the paths are fixed in
4D then what you are saying is that physicists
agree that you cannot move through spacetime.
So the site's premise is wrong. the site is
attacking a straw man
ThatFatMoogles: he later talks about
non-spatiality. How do you go back in time if
you are not travelling through time!
RabbitMunch: but as far as backwards
time travel is concerned, I don't think its
possible, but certainly not for the reasons
he gives. There are cases where you can have
closed, space-like loops though. (In black holes).
Thats the closest youll get to backwards time
travel.
eadon-com: an event horizon is one example
i beleive
ThatFatMoogles: oh, you mean when you
get accelerated beyond the speed of light?
RabbitMunch: no, the event horizon has
a bunch of peculiarities, but it does not have
a closed space-like loop
eadon-com: rabbit, what about the idea
that a wormhole can provide a time machine if
the spacetime tunnel *itself* moves?
ThatFatMoogles: does spacetime 'move'?
eadon-com: can spacetime move?
RabbitMunch: these really are philosophical
issues.
ThatFatMoogles: physics issues! :P
RabbitMunch: you are kind of asking whether
all times exist "somewhere" but we cannot access
them.
ThatFatMoogles: I'm going to further
argue that time is not a physical mechanism
but only an abstraction
RabbitMunch: This question is irrelevant
in physics because if there is no mutual casuality,
other times cannot be accessed.
eadon-com: ok, so thee we have the answer
Moogles, rabbit is a physicist and rabbit says
that movement in a 4D spacetime coordinate frame
is not possible because all paths are fixed.
Assuming that all physicists thing the same
way (or the vast majority of them) then the
"nasty secret" site is attacking a straw man
ThatFatMoogles: it is attacking travelling
back in time. Is that a straw man?
RabbitMunch: No, it is attacking more
than that.
ThatFatMoogles: it's attacking the spatialization
of time
RabbitMunch: Specifically the part on
units.
ThatFatMoogles: the abstract evolutionary
parameter
RabbitMunch: Any time these guys try
to get into mathematical descriptions of their
complaints, they shoot themselves in the foot.
eadon-com: But I'm pleased that I identified
the flaw in that sites reasoning about spacetime.
The nasty secret is in fact a con. The nasty
secret is true, but no one believes in the opposite,
so that is the con
RabbitMunch: It is best to say "spacetime
cannot evolve and therefore there is not motion".
Of course the conclusion is misleading, but
at least you are right.
ThatFatMoogles: "First they tell you
you're wrong and they can prove it; then they
tell you you're right but it isn't important;
then they tell you it's important but they knew
it all along." Charles Kettering, former head
of General Motors
ThatFatMoogles: steps 1 and 2 have been
made [here] so far :P
RabbitMunch: well there is no motion
in the sense that a space-time path is fixed.
For example the path of Mercury could be mapped
out considering all other objects it will interact
with. And once mapped out, that path would not
change. But so what?
eadon-com: oh, its just an argument between
moogles and me
ThatFatMoogles: how can you map a path
to change directions when there is no direction
PerrinAybara: "I am told God lives in
me -- and yet the reality of darkness and coldness
and emptiness is so great that nothing touches
my soul." - Mother Theresa
ThatFatMoogles: i'm talking about going
back in time :P
RabbitMunch: ok backwards time travel
would be out given what I said.
ThatFatMoogles: the planet mercury is
being mapped going through time -- how will
you map it going back in time, in a 'closed
vector loop' without changing 'directions' when
there is no direction in the first place
RabbitMunch: but again, this guy seems
to be arguing against much more than backwards
time travel.
ThatFatMoogles: yeah, he is. I feel he's
on the right track. I'm majoring in physics
so hopefully I'll be able to compute this a
little more later on :P
ThatFatMoogles: [Quotes from "nasty"
site] "Time travel is a symptom of a deeper
malady. It is part of a chronic malformation
of our collective scientific understanding of
the fundamental underpinnings of nature. It
is the end result of an incestuous intellectual
orgy that has been going on for over a century.
It is also the culmination of a scienti
ThatFatMoogles: "that took place in the
early part of the twentieth century. A group
of revolutionaries, fresh from the resounding
empirical victories of Einstein's theory of
relativity, established themselves as the sole
interpreters and oracles of the new science."
ThatFatMoogles: ack
RabbitMunch: woah. Why does this guy
get listed under 'crackpots' anyway? Is the
site just doing the same thing my boss does?
eadon-com: he's claiming the relativists
are crackpots, guys like hawking and wheeler
RabbitMunch: oh i see. Why not put einstein
at teh top of the list?
eadon-com: lol
RabbitMunch: or newton maybe??
ThatFatMoogles: he's not arguing against
the predictive correctness of the general and
special theories of relativity
RabbitMunch: einstein and newton could
arm wrestle for it.
ThatFatMoogles: rabbitmunch, are those
spacetime mathematical constructs REAL physical
processes?
RabbitMunch:
ThatFatMoogles: he's not arguing against
the predictive correctness of the general and
special theories of relativity
ThatFatMoogles: Before I continue, less
I be immediately branded as an anti-relativity
crank, let me make it perfectly clear that I
agree with the mathematical and predictive correctness
of both the Special and the General Theory of
Relativity.
ThatFatMoogles: he says that at the top
of his site :P
RabbitMunch: Ok, after this comment,
I have to repeat that your arguments are philosophical.
Physical theories predict the behavior of observable
quantities. c who's your boss? :P
RabbitMunch: If your problems are not
with the consistancy of the theories to experiment,
you are talking philosophy. Not one of those
guys, although I have met most of them.
eadon-com: rabbit, that site explicitly
claims that physicists believe that things can
move in 4D spacetime. This accusation is the
core of his page, even the "nasty secret" title,
and the accusation is false. It is a straw man
argument. Philosophy is a minor issue.
RabbitMunch: Yes it is straw-man in that
sense. But I am more talking about TFM's take
on the site.
ThatFatMoogles: he's arguing against
people who tell him that motion through spacetime
is possible. He eventually just put that page
up I think to argue against everyone at once
:P
Finally, here is an exchange of emails between
"Nemesis", the dude who wrote that
anti-relativity page, and me.
My email to "Nemesis:
Hi!
Your page was recommended to me by someone who
left a comment on this page http://www.eadon.com/phil/mtheory.php
I read your page and thought, what a load of
bollocks! So I wrote a page on why it is bollocks.
The recommender of your site and I then argue
about it. Next a *real* physicist joins in.
Please see http://www.eadon.com/phil/relsitedebunked.php
Hope you like my page above, even though it
is there to debunk your page! Please tell me
what you think! (Even if it's rude)
Thanks
Jim
Nemesis replies:
Jim,
Well, you asked for it. Your page is a joke
and so is your so-called physicist. First you
misinterpret what I wrote about the 19 yr-old
kid. Then you repeatedly use the phrase 'evolutionary
parameter' rather than 'evolution parameter'.
Third, your so-called physicist has no idea
what an evolution parameter is (what a dope!).
Anyway give my regards to ThatFatMoogles. He,
at least, has some sense. But you and the rabbit
guy need help, bad. See ya!
Nemesis
My reply:
Nemesis,
I notice you haven't defended yourself against
my accusations of straw-man. Incidentally, I
thought you might warm to ThatFatMoogles, he's
a clever dude for sure. You nit-pick thus: "
Then
you repeatedly use the phrase 'evolutionary
parameter' rather than 'evolution parameter'."
but actually the dude who paraphrased '
evolutionary
parameter' was ThatFatMoogles - the only
guy you say "
has some sense". Ironic
isn't it? I am not so surprised to hear your
wrath against the physicist. May I ask what
your own qualifications are in the field Nemesis?
I imagine you have a degree in theology :)
Yours statically in space-time,
Jim
No reply from Mr Nemesis has been received to
date.
Please try this: for more chats, debates
on religion and other topics (with different
people), click
here.
Do you agree?
Add your comment to this page
 | | | | |
| From: |
tuco | Subject: | 2001-09-07 17:09:44 |
| | | | |
| From: |
StuH | Subject: | 2002-06-05 17:00:08 |
| | | | |
| From: |
NoTimeTravel | Subject: | 2003-02-21 18:31:08 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Clayton Carter | Subject: | 2003-08-31 13:38:08 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Clayton Carter | Subject: | 2003-08-31 13:40:37 |
| | | | |
| From: |
clayton carter | Subject: | 2003-08-31 13:41:30 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Clayton Carter | Subject: | 2003-08-31 13:47:07 |
| | | | |
| From: |
me | Subject: | 2004-09-16 22:46:53 |
| | | | |
| From: |
just1post | Subject: | 2005-01-17 23:15:50 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Yogesh Patil | Subject: | 2006-09-06 12:55:30 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Bob Hannon | Subject: | 2008-04-30 19:44:43 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 3597
