Is Causality Bullshit?

[canterburyales]

I am no physicist but I have read enough about relativity to understand it to certain degree.
Isn’t it true that the simple statement that light travels at the same speed relative to an observer, no matter their movement, enough to logically draw many of the unintuitive conclusions of relativity? No need for clocks or other measuring devices. In order for this observable phenomenon to be true, weird things need to happen.
Perhaps someone more eloquent and knowledgeable than I could could lead nilum through a thought experiment proving that the relativistic effects on time are not just some mechanical action, but a fundamental reality based on that premise alone.
If nobody takes up my challenge and I have some time I’ll try to find some good illustrations of what I’m getting at.

[canterburyales]

To add to my previous message. I think this question is at the heart of the matter:

@nilum

We believe we know time isn’t constant based on atomic clocks running slower in orbit correct? But maybe that’s just gravity’s effect on clocks and not time.

Relativity wasn’t created to explain the clocks. The clocks confirm what relativity predicts. Relativity can be understood as an elegant description of a reality where light always travels at the same speed.
Anyone, please correct me where I’m wrong.

[The_Hamster_King]

@canterburyales

Relativity wasn’t created to explain the clocks. The clocks confirm what relativity predicts.

Exactly. If you accept that light always travels at the same speed for every observer, then the clock slowdown is an inevitable conclusion.

[Pleonast]

@nilum

Who would have thought people on this message board would get their feelings hurt over not accepting their ‘expert’ opinions. I’m sorry… are any of you ACTUAL physicists? I’d be surprised if most of you even took physics in college (it was required curriculum for me). So who knows maybe I am more qualified.

Chronos is a physicist, although I have not posted in this thread before now, so am I. There are others on this board. I can’t speak for them, but although I enjoy explaining physics to other, I do not enjoy arguing with those who do not want to learn.

Except for a few possible quibbles, what others are saying is correct and you are wrong. Special relativity (as a special case of general relativity) has been confirmed repeatedly by experiment. Physicists would be very eager to disprove it–conclusive evidence would earn one a Nobel prize in short order.

If you really want to understand relativity, I suggest opening another thread in General Questions with a specific question. This well is poisoned.

[TriPolar]

@Indistinguishable

I should say, post #49 is also, I think, required reading for understanding how to interpret the simple mathematical theorem as a claim against local hidden variable theories. But, yeah, read the thread and let me know what you think. I’d be happy to clarify anything confusing or answer any questions that come up.

Ok, this narrative got me through the probability argument: http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html
It conforms with your explanation. I wouldn’t criticize your explanation, it’s just difficult to explain these things to people who don’t have the background, and that site just did it more slowly and assumed the reader didn’t start with much preparation. Appendix III about the calculation, put the explanation of spin behavior together with the explanation of Bell’s, another convenience.

Thanks for your help here. I can move forward a little now, and learn a little more about this.

Three points of interest:

1. I don’t find quantum or relativity all that weird or counter-intuitive, a lot of the things seem strange to me until they are examined in detail. I would describe the cases at worst to be non-intuitive. When the explanations start by calling the phenomena ‘strange’, it may reinforce that concept in the reader’s mind, making it harder to deal with the explanation.
2. Some eminent physicists tried to help me understand relativity long ago. Their expertise in physics didn’t translate to an ability to explain it to us laymen. People who weren’t so absorbed in the field, and didn’t think all the background knowledge was ‘obvious’ were much more help. Maybe you are a great physicist who has both the knowledge and the explanatory skills.
3. If you ask two or more physicists in the same place to explain these complex areas, they will probably end up arguing about what the best analogous explanation is.

Thanks again.