Re: General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.

On 11/13/2024 08:59 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

JanPB <film.art@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:39:18 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>

Reasonable defense by a relativist: Dingle refuted the alleged cause of
relative motion for time dilation of special relativity. Time dilation
is a part of GR, not SR.

>
Dingle's mistake was assuming a direct cause. But it may be that
the two are merely *correlated* by a *common indirect cause*.
>
In physics situations like this arose many times. For example,
Maxwell's theory required equipping EM fields with their own
momentum and angular momentum (otherwise the conservation laws
would fail). Nobody knew what the seat of that momentum was.
This was only modelled much later in quantum electrodynamics.
>
It's very likely that time dilation, etc., are similarly conditioned
phenomena. We still don't have the right model for the underlying
causes.

>
This is highly unlikely.
Time dilation seems to be an inherent property
of the space-time we find ourselves in.
It has nothing to do with any kind of physics.
(let alone models of something)
Au contraire,
physical theories must be Lorentz invariant by construction,
to have any chance at all of being viable.
>

Same thing happened with thermodynamics when people started to
(correctly) quantify the amount of heat despite not knowing what
heat was, or even at one point while having the wrong model of
heat (the "caloric" or "phlogiston" model).

>
Likewise. The notions of entropy and absolute temperature
have nothing to do with any physical system in particular.
That's why thermodynamics can be axiomatised.
>

So this is a normal (although a bit temporarily uncomfortable)
position for a physics theory to be in, it's nothing new.

>
Nothing uncomfortable about it.
>

It only seems such a tragedy to amateurs who ONLY know relativity but do
not actually understand PHYSICS and how science works in particular. One
standard amateur mistake here is the constant confusion of physics with
philosophy.

>
Unfortunately not just amateurs....
>
Jan
>

The SR-ians are mostly sensationalist phenomenologists
who though think they have operationalist instrumentalism
that makes them non-intersubjective fictionalists
and nominalist weak logical positivists,
of the easily fooled variety.
This is in contrast to platonistic theorists
which intersubjective toward interobjective realism
and platonistic stronger logical positivists
teleology and ontology both, not
the neither-nor of groundless existentialism/nihilism
and what sees Chrysippus boot Plotinus and his pawn Russell,
that stronger platonism and stronger logical positivism
wins with both teleology and ontology and
the strong idealist and analytic and techno-analytic
philosophy, and of science.
It's said Popper adding falsifiability,
yet then he's a weaker sort of logical positivist,
which is merely again an inductive, linear empirical pragmatist.
With no ontological commitment at all except there not being one, ....
Not professionals, ..., where for example Einstein provides at
least two notions of a scientific observer:
"rote inductive model physicist", and
"idealist thorough model philosopher".
Not even practicing, ....