Bill Hobba wrote:


For c2/U v c we would then have delta t' 0 - hence there would exist
frame in which L precedes P ie in which cause precedes effect ie casualty is
violated.

David Hume pointed out that causality is really association of event
types always observed. What if we observed things in a different way.
Are causal connects guaranteed? We know from experience that what we
call causes preceed what we call effects. But does our experience
exhaust all the possibility that exist in nature? Hume pointed out that
we observed coincidence and propinquity in the temporal ordering, but
that we have NEVER observed a NECESSARY CONNECTION between cause and
effect. We have only observed instances of event types we say are
causally related.




Rindler then goes not discuss the severe logical implications of this -
basically we would be in deep **** - being able to for example kill a rat in
one frame but in the other see it come to life. Thus when the two observers
come together again somehow the process of deceleration would have to cause
the rat to die or come alive - a rather far fetched idea.. Many similar
situations can be envisaged.

If Nature could care (it can't) it would not give a rats patootie how
deep we are in ****. That is our problem, not Nature's. Nature does not
care what our theories are or even if we theorize. Long before humans
there were plants and critter that just *were*. They never thought and
they never theorized. We tend to let our self consciousness of the fact
that we are self conscious lull us into thinking that our thinking
really matters to anything but us. Nature does not care if we think or
not. Nature does not care --- period. The universe is mostly dead and we
are a fluke that is alive.

Bob Kolker