the [possible] fallacy of Lorentz contractions

Morbert wrote: »

That is the problem. You have not established the idea of intrinsic motion. We know that the motion of a body is reference-frame dependent, and we know that there are scenarios where no reference frame will label two objects as at rest. This in no way establishes intrinsic motion.

The relative motion of a body is frame dependent; the absolute nature of motion is not.

And while we know that there are scenarios where no reference frame will label two objects as "at rest", we can distinguish those scenarios physically, in such a manner that makes implications about the absolute nature of the motion, of those objects; we can also deduce that of the possible scenarios, at least one has to be correct - because they are physically different and can't all be simultaneosuly true; from this we are left with the implications about the absolute nature of the motion, of the objects.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The term absolute is getting abused here. An absolute velocity would be one which all observers could measure against and agree to its velocity. Possibly light has absolute motion.

Roosh wants to make the term mean the item being propelled by a force to get it to a certain velocity relative to its initial local frame ( generally the local frame is the Earth) and he thinks that is qualitatively different from the relative motion of the frame ( the earth) to the rest of the universe.

Well as far as I can tell. All of this seems to be off topic to the Lorenz contractions, which, it must be pointed out are confirmed empirically.

Indeed, the term "absolute" is getting abused here; because some people seem to be insisting on an interpretation of the term absolute that makes it relative; which of course is a contradiction in terms.

But I think I see the issue; there seems to be confusion about what is being stated; I haven't mentioned anything about an absolute velocity, which, of course, implies a measurable value. I have been speaking, strictly, about absolute motion, which refers to the state of motion of an object.

To highlight the difference: I can go outside and observe relatively moving objects, without necessarily knowing their relative velocity; obtaining a value for the relative velocity requires me to perform certain subsequent tasks i.e. measurements.

The nature of motion of an object is not necessarily a measureable quality, and so it doesn't require a reference frame. Again, it is a "yes or no", "either, or" question; or a statement that isn't qualified by saying "relative to X" e.g. "I am moving" as opposed to "I am moving relative to X".

What I "want to make the term" is consistent and corresponding to its actual meaning, as opposed to defining it in a logically, self-contradictroy manner, as appears to be the case with the historical conceptualisation.

Lorentz contractions
It actually does pertain to the topic of Lorentz contractions, because, of course, it pertains to the motion; absolute motion which gives rise to the relative motion between objects, and thus necessitates the use of Lorentz contractions.

Where I was wrong in my OP was that I wasn't aware of Lorentzian relativity, which also uses the Lorentz transform, but which does include the concept of absolute motion. The issue was the implicit assumption of absolute rest in Einsteinian reference frames, something which isn't the case in Lorentzian relativity.

Morbert wrote: »

And by absolute motion, you mean motion intrinsic to the object (which you have not established), as opposed to an absolute statement about the motion of an object, relative to another.

"Am I moving?" Is a frame-dependant question. The answer will be different for different observers, hence not "absolute".

"Am I moving, relative to X?" is a frame-independent question. The answer will be the same for all observers. The answer is absolute. This, however, in no way establishes any notion of intrinsic, frame-independent "absolute" motion.

An absolute statement about the motion of an object, relative to another, is entirely distinct from a statement about the absolute, or intrinsic nature of motion, of an object.

"I am moving, relative to X" is an absolute statement about the motion of an object relative to another, because it specifies the object relative to which "I" am in motion.

"I am moving" is a statement about the absolute nature of the motion, of an object, precisely because it doesn't make reference to the object, relative to which it is moving.


"I am moving" isn't frame dependent, because it doesn't specify a frame or a set of co-orindates, relative to which the motion occurs; it is a simple statement about the absolute nature of motion. Regardless of the reference frame, the act of motion is ascribed to a specified object.


EDIT: We can see that the question "Am I moving?" relates to the absolute nature of motion of an object, by considering the example of the train at rest relative to another train, in the station; when the trains start moving relative to each other, the question "am I (or is our train) moving, or is it the other train that is moving?" clearly relates to a question about the intrinsic motion of the train, because there is no question that the trains are moving relative to one another, or that the observer, asking the question, is at rest relative to their own train. In fact, it is the self-evident relative motion between the trains which prompts the question, which one is actually moving.


Again, our three scenarios are deductively different, and cannot possibly, all be true; each one makes implicit reference to the intrinsic motion of the objects involved. While we cannot determine which one is true, we can determine that one of them must be true, and with it that objects must have intrinsic motion.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I am moving is the same statement as I am moving relative to X, as you always move relative to something. These are word games, which is part of the problem with philosophy. None of it threatens Lorenz contractions which are assumed in theory and verified empirically - GPS satellites have to adjust their clocks.

I should probably point out again, that this thread was started before I realised that there exists another theory which also uses the Lorentz contractions, but which is based on different, underlying assumptions. I would have been more correct to raise a question about the possible fallacy of the conclusions in Einsteinian relativity.

As for the word games, you need look no further than post #95 above. I certainly amn't playing them; I'm relating everything I say back to our experience of the physical world, and trying to make logical deductions.


Above, you say that "I am moving" is the same as saying "I am moving relative to X", because you always move relative to something. Firstly, "I am moving" is entirely distinct from "I am moving relative to X", because depending on what X is, you may not necessarily be moving relative to it. Indeed, it is possible that you and X are both moving but are at rest relative to each other.

"I am moving" is a statement about the intrinsic nature of "my" motion, precisely because it doesn't relate that motion to anything; it is a practical consequence of absolute motion, in this universe, that something absolutely in motion will also be in motion relative to something else.


This can be boiled down to a simple question of: are humans capable of motion?

citrus burst wrote: »

I'm sorry to have to say this but that is wrong. You do always move relative to something, otherwise it would be totally meaningless. In the world of physics/relativity "I am moving relative to x" and "I am moving" are indistinguishable. The latter is just a short hand way of saying the former.

I'm not suggesting that we won't always measure our motion relative to something else, or that our motion won't manifest relative to something else; but that we will inevitably be moving relative to something, in the universe, doesn't preclude us from having intrinsic motion, that isn't necessarily defined relative to something else.

"I am moving" and "I am moving relative to X" aren't indistinguishable at all; "I am moving" is a statement about the intrinsic nature of motion of an object, precisely because it doesn't make reference to the object, relative to which it is moving. It is a statement about the absolute nature of motion. It is a statement about the agent of motion i.e. "the thing that is actually doing the moving" which results in the relative motion.

With two objects at rest relative to each other, one object has to actually "do the moving" in order for relative motion to manifest; if neither object "does the moving" then both objects will remain at rest relative to each other.

citrus burst wrote: »

It doesn't matter what on x is, if you are not moving relative to x, then the two of you are at rest with each other. You can both be moving (relative to something else) but be at rest with each other. In a universe with only one object (reference frame) there is no motion. In a universe with two objects (reference frames) there is either motion, one object is moving wrt the other (or vice versa) or there is no motion, both objects are at rest with each. You might ask the question but what if the two objects are moving, just not wrt to each other, well its simply meaningless, it can't be detected. Why? Because there is nothing to compare x's motion with other then y's motion so either they are both moving relative to each other or they are at rest to each other. You could add a 3rd object/reference frame to determine if x and y are moving, and are at rest with each other, but then this motion (or rest) would be relative to this new thing in the universe z. You can keep adding reference frames/objects all the way up to infinity, but it will just have the same conclusions, things are moving relative to each other, or they are at rest (not moving) relative to each other.

The thing is, we only need to consider the simplest possible scenario of two objects moving relative to each other; it is somewhat easier, I think, when we think of the two objects starting off at rest, relative to each other.

Where A and B are at rest relative to each other, either A or B will have to "do the moving" in order for relative motion to manifest between them; if neither A nor B "does the moving", then no relative motion will manifest, and they will remain at rest relative to each other. We can add as many reference frames as we like, up to infinity, but wherever we discuss relative motion, the conclusion will be the same.


Even something you say above reflects the underlying implication of absolute motion: "In a universe with two objects (reference frames) there is either motion, one object is moving wrt the other (or vice versa), or there is no motion, both objects are at rest with [respect to] each other"

In a universe with two objects, how can one object be moving with repsect to the other and vice versa? This implies that one object is actively moving.

In a universe with only two objects either both objects are moving with respect to each other (no vice versa) or they are at rest relative to each other.

To conclude that there is not motion is not justified; what you mean is, there is no relative motion; absolute motion, on the other hand, is an intrinsic characteristic of the bodies, and isn't necessarily relative to anything else, and therefore, isn't necessarily measurable. This, of course, doesn't make it meaningless, as it does have logically deducible consequences.

Also, where there is no relative motion between two objects those objects could be at absolute rest, or they could absolutely in motion. That we cannot determine either way makes no odds. What we are not free to deduce is that "absolute rest" doesn't exist, simply for the fact that the objects might acutally be at absolute rest.

Of course, they might not be, but the prefectly plausible possibility that they might be, prevents us from ruling out the existence of absolute rest. And we don't have to asssume absolute rest exists either, we just have to allow for the possibility that it might, or could - as the evidence suggests.

citrus burst wrote: »

"I am moving" is a statement about your motion, relative to a reference frame, whether or not you state what reference frame it is. Generally we mean the Earth when we say it. You just don't move, you just don't fast, you just don't slow, you just don't big etc.

Its a practical consequence of thousands of years of evolution on one stable, approximately flat, infinite plane, that only recently humans have discovered to not be the full picture.

"I am moving" is a statement about the nature of your motion. "I am going to the shop", or rephrased as "I am moving to the shop" is a statement about you actively moving to the shop, as opposed to the shop actively moving to you.

The practical consequence of existence on earth is the fact that when we are at rest, realtive to the earth, we share it's intrinsic motion i.e. we are carted along with it on its orbit around the sun - that is, if you believe that the earth is actually orbiting the sun, and not the other way around. This however, doesn't mean that we cannot subsequently move around on the surface of the earth i.e. actually move around on the surface of the earth.

That the absolute nature of our motion gives rise to relative motion, and that we measure our motion relative to other objects, doesn't mean that we aren't "actually moving"; it just means that our intrinsic motion naturally sets us in motion relative to other intrinsically moving objects.

The erroneous conclusion that seems to be drawn, from the fact that we cannot determine, by scientific experiment, the absolute nature of our motion, is that the nature of our motion is not absolute; or said another way, just because we cannot measure the absolute nature of our motion, that the nature of our motion is not absolute. This of course isn't a justifiable conclusion, but rather it highlights a limitation on the ability to measure intrinsic properties.

citrus burst wrote: »

I would say yes *goes and gets a cup of tea*

Is your capability of motion frame dependent, or it is an intrinsic ability?

If you were the only object in the universe, would you still be capable of motion?

When you went to make the cup of tea, was it you that did the moving, or did the entire universe manouevre around you in such a manner as to facilitate the making of the tea?

citrus burst wrote: »

Again, I hope this all makes sense and am open to corrections

It does CB, cheers.

I hope what I'm saying makes sense too. I genuinely think that an issue here might be to do with conditioned thinking; it might be because we are discussing this purely theoretically, that the theoretical training in relativity is coming to the fore.

If you go for a walk outside, where you don't see the world through the lense of a mathematical reference frame - regardless of how we can define one - then the question of "am I moving" should hopefully become clearer.