What was wrong with Dingle?

Samizdat,

Probably not. Although gravity does appear to be an anti-entropic process (hence your speculation about its possible influence on aging?), it probably operates at the wrong scales of time and space to make a difference in biological processes.

===

Aging is a complicated process. We know quite a bit about it, but the most importamt thing we know is that we don't know enough. Not nearly enough.

The first things to ponder are that aging is not the same in different species. And it is not the same in different organs. And it is not the same in different cell types.

Some examples for human beings -

*) The average life span for all cell types in our bodies is about 7 years. But ...
*) At the short end, the life span of a human red blood cell is about 100 hours.
*) At the long end, the life span for a human neuron is ... unknown. These cells normally outlive the host. When you die the specific brain cells in your head are, for the most part, the same ones you were born with.
*) Some cells lose a tiny bit of information (DNA) when they reproduce. Others always make perfect copies. (Google on "telemere" for more details. Some call this the master clock for aging.)
*) Individual cells generate trash as they operate. Some of this trash is "excreted". But not all. Some cell types are better at this than others. If enough accumulates it can cause the cell to malfunction.

===

A recent development of some interest: we now have the ability to induce hybernation in animals, including mamals, that do not naturally hybernate. So far no one has admitted trying this on a human, but dogs, cats and monkeys have been successfully "hybernated".

The connection to the current topic is that hybernation seems to slow down all biological processes to the point of actually stopping. (See Scientific American, within the last 6 months or so, or google on "induced hybernation" or similar. Ultra fascinating. Especially when you see how they do it. Room temperature suspended animation.)

Regards,
LB

[LB] "(Would you conclude from my recognition of the accurate predictions of the Ptolemaic system that I believe it is a good theory?)"

[thebobgy] "Yes! I would make that conclusion, good, only not up to date."

Ah. Please consider the following (slightly adjusted) question:

(
Would you conclude from my recognition of the accurate predictions of the Ptolemaic system that I believe it is a good <u>physical</u> theory?
)

[thebobgy] "My question would be; is there a statute of limitations on good theories? Just kidding. Thank you."

Good one. There obviously ought to be.


[thebobgy] "Physics should define the math to be used to describe the physics not vice versa."

You will get no argument from me on this point.

[thebobgy] "The physics can be right and the math can be wrong but if the physics are wrong then the math is wrong.

I now suspect that we have different understandings of what internal consistency is (and is not). Perhaps we need a new concept, something along the lines of "external" consistency, to help sort this out? Try this on:

The equations of the Ptolemaic system make accurate predictions. To me this (is part of what) makes it internally consistent.

But the physical interpretation of its math (that the universe actually operates as if there are a bunch of wheels-within-wheels moving the stars and planets with Earth at the center) makes no sense to me. IMO this keeps it from being externally consistent. It makes the physical theory wrong, even though the equations (the mathmatical theory) work.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />[LB] Original question "(Would you conclude from my recognition of the accurate predictions of the Ptolemaic system that I believe it is a good theory?)"
[thebobgy] "Yes! I would make that conclusion, good, only not up to date." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Its really quite simple; a half bottle of beer is “good” a full bottle of beer is “very good” yet an empty bottle of beer is “not very good’. If, as you say; “the accurate predictions of the Ptolemaic” are true then the bottle is not “empty” so there is at least some degree of “good” that you “believe” in. And since you describe the predictions as “accurate” then I would also conclude that you believe that the “theory” is at least half correct or “good”.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[thebobgy, statement 1.] "Physics should define the math to be used to describe the physics not vice versa."
[LB] You will get no argument from me on this point.

[thebobgy, statement 2.] "The physics can be right and the math can be wrong but if the physics are wrong then the math is wrong.
[LB] I now suspect that we have different understandings of what internal consistency is (and is not). Perhaps we need a new concept, something along the lines of "external" consistency, to help sort this out? Try this on: The equations of the Ptolemaic system make accurate predictions. To me this (is part of what) makes it internally consistent.
But the physical interpretation of its math (that the universe actually operates as if there are a bunch of wheels-within-wheels moving the stars and planets with Earth at the center) makes no sense to me. IMO this keeps it from being externally consistent. It makes the physical theory wrong, even though the equations (the mathmatical theory) work.
Please consider the following (slightly adjusted) question:
(Would you conclude from my recognition of the accurate predictions of the Ptolemaic system that I believe it is a good <u>physical</u> theory?)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you agree with statement 1, then I fail to see how you would dispute statement 2. You seem to be basing your opinion of Ptolemaic’s theory on today’s technical knowledge. I am hard pressed to believe that Ptolemaic actually believed the stars were being turned by gears. In your first question you asked me to draw a conclusion based on you description of Ptolemaic’s theory and my answer was; Yes! I would conclude that you believe that Ptolemaic’s theory is good.. Now you ask me the same basic, but rephrased, question and my answer is again, Yes! Why? Because of your following statement; “The equations of the Ptolemaic system make accurate predictions.“ So, the bottle is still half full, which, in my honest opinion, is “good”. If you do not agree with my definition of “good” then change both of my answers to No! However, if you do disagree with my definition of “good” then I reserve the right to rephrase my definition.
As to “internal v external” consistency. I suggest we save that subject for its own discussion.
Now, I have given you two, albeit with reservations, straight forward answers, each with explanations, to both of your questions so now I am going to ask you two questions and I expect two straight forward answers from you, if you have no objection. Question 1. Of the four equations, as derived from SR, that I listed in my previous Post; which do you believe accurately describes a known physical event? Question 2. Based on my two answers to your questions; would you concluded that I a.) agree as to what I conclude you believe. b.) disagree as to what I conclude you believe or, c.) am non committal as to what I conclude you believe?
And just for the record I will restate statement 2.] "The physics can be right and the math can be wrong but if the physics are wrong then the math is wrong. Your opinion notwithstanding, no offence intended.
Off the subject, having dialog on a message board is difficult enough without intermingling non related subject matter part way through. I would agree that discussing Ptolemaic’s theory is an interesting subject but I fail to see how it directly relates to my original question about SRs equations. Now I am not going to accuse that what you did was deliberate but misdirecting the subject is disingenuous to the dialog. We went form SRs math, my subject, to me trying to conclude what you may or may not believe about a theory that is somewhat out dated, your subject. Since I have been on this message board I have asked different members at least 15, (15 total not 15 to each) straight forward questions at different times and not once have I received a straight forward answer. My questions have been evaded, avoided or misdirected and I am beginning to sense a pattern. Yes, I have gone off the subject but I am not misdirecting it. I am only going to ask you, and anyone else who may read this, to at least try and stay on point. Thank you.
thebobgy

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Max</i>
<br />I apologize for perhaps bringing up the topic, as it is perhaps been disected ad naseaum here and elsewhere, but I am completely ignorant on the understanding of SR beyond college physics. However, implication of SR are trully mindblowing.

My specific questions are: since Dingle's thought experiment is very simple and symmetrical, and modern SR interpretations clearly deal with Dingle's problem consistently, does this mean that in SR reality is strictly local? Does this imply multiple Universes for each existing observer?

What is the resolution to a completely symmetrical Twins setup according to modern interpretation of SR? I want to understand SR as true relativists do, but to this day I haven't got a grasp of SR solution to Dingle's challenge.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Have you heard of H.A. Lorentz’s “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern”, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1895?

This is the origin of “time dilation”, “length contraction,” “mass increase due to motion”, “the speed limit of c”, and other ideas that are now associated with Einstein’s 1905 SR theory.

Time dilation due to motion was Lorentz’s idea. In fact, Einstein’s “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” of 1905 was his own “update” of the 10-year-old Lorentz theory. This was well known back early in the 20th Century, but it has been forgotten today, since the Lorentz book eventually became very rare and it was never translated into English.

There is no clock paradox in the Lorentz theory because Lorentz has “forces” that are placed on his moving atomic clocks (fundamental internally oscillating atoms) that causes them to slow down their internal “tick” rates. Lorentz used the “ether” to determine if a clock (an atom) moved or not. He used it much like a “field”. If an atom moved through the “ether”, its internal oscillation rate slowed down. If a second atom did not move through the ether “field”, its internal oscillation rate did not slow down. Thus, no clock paradox.

Einstein doesn’t have any such “forces” on his clocks, and he tried to slow down the tick rates of his clocks with just “relative motion” alone. That’s where Einstein ran into trouble and created his clock paradox, since “relative motion” places no force on any clock and can not slow down any clock. “Relative motion” of a clock is the same as “no motion” of the clock, as far as the clock is concerned. A clock would have to experience a “force” on it to know that it has “moved”. Einstein added forces to his clocks later, when he developed his GR theory, and there is no clock paradox in GR theory. But there is in SR theory.

Dingle finally began to realize that the SR theory was flawed, and he began to write about it. His book is very rare now too.

Somebody would do the world a great service by translating Lorentz’s 1895 book into English and by reprinting Dingle’s book.

[thebobgy]

“Question 1. Of the four equations, as derived from SR, that I listed in my previous Post; which do you believe accurately describes a known physical event?

Question 2. Based on my two answers to your questions; would you concluded that I
a.) agree as to what I conclude you believe.
b.) disagree as to what I conclude you believe or,
c.) am non committal as to what I conclude you believe? "

===

Your questions have not been avoided. (But they might have been misunderstood.) Here are the main points of my answers again.

A1) All of them.

Each of the equations of SR has been used on many occasions to make accurate predictions of the outcome of real world observations. If this were not the case then SR would not be the darling of the mainstream. But this is just the math part of the theory. Why do you care? This is a physics board.

NOTE - The equations of Ptolemy's theory were also used to make accurate predictions of the outcome of real world observations. If this had not been the case then Ptolemaic Cosmology would not have been the darling of the mainstream back then. No theory can survive if it doesn't make accurate predictins. But bad physics isn't as easy to detect.

SR is much like Ptolemaic Cosmology (the math works but the physics sucks) - that's why I brought it up. Not to change the subject but to offer another example (perhaps easier to see) of the differences between math and physics. Accurate descriptions are not the same as correct explanations.

In both cases the equations work (they make numerical predictions that match observations of the real world). In both cases the equations are not, IMO, an accurate model of physical reality (physical reality is different than the model on which the equations are based.).

The real world is not an Earth centered place with the stars and planets moving around it as if they were mounted on wheels geared toghther in sometimes very complicated relationships. But if you write equations based on such a theory you can accurately predict where a planet will be in the future.

The real world is not a four dimensional place with time frozen into a charicature of distance. But if you write equations based on such a theory you can accurately predict what time a moving clock will read when viewed from Earth.


A2) B

I would conclude that you disagree as to to what you conclude I believe.

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Samizdat,

Probably not. Although gravity does appear to be an anti-entropic process (hence your speculation about its possible influence on aging?), it probably operates at the wrong scales of time and space to make a difference in biological processes.

===

Aging is a complicated process. We know quite a bit about it, but the most importamt thing we know is that we don't know enough. Not nearly enough.

The first things to ponder are that aging is not the same in different species. And it is not the same in different organs. And it is not the same in different cell types.

Some examples for human beings -

*) The average life span for all cell types in our bodies is about 7 years. But ...
*) At the short end, the life span of a human red blood cell is about 100 hours.
*) At the long end, the life span for a human neuron is ... unknown. These cells normally outlive the host. When you die the specific brain cells in your head are, for the most part, the same ones you were born with.
*) Some cells lose a tiny bit of information (DNA) when they reproduce. Others always make perfect copies. (Google on "telemere" for more details. Some call this the master clock for aging.)
*) Individual cells generate trash as they operate. Some of this trash is "excreted". But not all. Some cell types are better at this than others. If enough accumulates it can cause the cell to malfunction.

===

A recent development of some interest: we now have the ability to induce hybernation in animals, including mamals, that do not naturally hybernate. So far no one has admitted trying this on a human, but dogs, cats and monkeys have been successfully "hybernated".

The connection to the current topic is that hybernation seems to slow down all biological processes to the point of actually stopping. (See Scientific American, within the last 6 months or so, or google on "induced hybernation" or similar. Ultra fascinating. Especially when you see how they do it. Room temperature suspended animation.)

Regards,
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Interesting stuff, LB, thanks!