Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

No.

You still haven't addressed my question. How can you determine which, if any, of my three observers were describing reality if reality isn't relative?

I answered. We know the order of things. We know something that isn't relative. Broken plates don't jump off the floor and put themselves back together for any observer.

All observers see the order of events the same.

In the example all observers see the pole enter the tunnel before it leaves.

This post is damned funny.

You really should have read that super simplistic description of special relativity (apparently written for pre-teens with short attention spans) that I tried to encourage you to read.

Order of events can be defined in such a way to not refer to the order of events but instead to the appearance of events.

We know that a short pole appears differently passing through a tunnel than a long one. But we don't call this a change in the order of events. Nobody would call it that.

The order of events, in terms of a pole moving though a tunnel, is the pole enters before it leaves.

Show me using your vast knowledge of relativity how this order can change.

I prefer to watch you waving arms, flailing, and asserting nonsense than try to explain something to you. It is a hell of a lot funnier (and I do enjoy a good giggle). I have learned that anything that you don't already believe just rolls off and you keep asserting the same nonsense. I offered a link that simply describes special relativity which you refuse to read so it is obvious that you don't really want to learn anything.

If you actually had anything to say I suspect you would say it.

That you don't demonstrates agreement, or at least no good argument.

 

[Kharakov]

I don't think skepticalbip, George, (others earlier in the thread), or I used "infinite regression" to mean going back to a specific point. By definition, infinite regression is undefined (as in "not defined by a specific point", not as in "words without definitions").

Wait, infinite regress does not necessarily mean no past point of reference. It may just be a cyclical proposition such as 5 days ago always comes after 6 days ago. This proposition will regress infinitely every 5 days.

Circular regression is not the same as infinite regression. Periodic events are used to describe timing, because they allow synchronization between events. This doesn't mean every rotation of the earth is infinite- the earth moves relative to other things, etc.. Each rotation has unique characteristics (as well as having the identifying characteristic of being one rotation of the Earth).

Arguments for free will sometimes infinitely regress, "I chose A because B", "I chose C because D" ....

A simple scenario would be to wind a clock backwards infinitely. We won't worry about the day, whether it is ante meridiem or post meridiem. At what point does the clock stop winding backwards? Does it stop? What is the defined point that the clock stops winding infinitely?

Just because we have a statement or word to describe something, doesn't mean that something has finite definition.

Can you explain the last sentence here differently? It seems like an interesting take on infinity.

Yeah. If you ask a more fanged question, I might come up with something. I need to hit the store before rush hour though... so :d

Maybe it was when I was trying to come up with a way to divide by zero...hehe..

Yeah, the quicker I forget about my old posts the better.

Don't know about that.

 

[skepticalbip]

I prefer to watch you waving arms, flailing, and asserting nonsense than try to explain something to you. It is a hell of a lot funnier (and I do enjoy a good giggle). I have learned that anything that you don't already believe just rolls off and you keep asserting the same nonsense. I offered a link that simply describes special relativity which you refuse to read so it is obvious that you don't really want to learn anything.

If you actually had anything to say I suspect you would say it.

That you don't demonstrates agreement, or at least no good argument.

 

[Kharakov]

Using a mixture of tachyons and photons, I was able to observe the pole exiting the tunnel before it entered.

 

[Juma]

Show me using your vast knowledge of relativity how this order can change.

The shortening of the pole is a fundamental property of time!

Space and time are indivisible parts of a bigger reality: space-time. Something that moves will "rotate" in space time and trade the time dimension with the space dimension. This the length of time interval and space intervals will vary depending on speed relative the observer.


Your counter argument has been:
1) it is not the same rod.
2) the events are no real events.

Both are ridiculous if you really think about it.
Of course it is the same rod.

And of course it is real events. What part of the definition of event is not fulfilled?

 

[untermensche]

Show me using your vast knowledge of relativity how this order can change.

The shortening of the pole is a fundamental property of time!

Space and time are indivisible parts of a bigger reality: space-time. Something that moves will "rotate" in space time and trade the time dimension with the space dimension. This the length of time interval and space intervals will vary depending on speed relative the observer.


Your counter argument has been:
1) it is not the same rod.
2) the events are no real events.

Both are ridiculous if you really think about it.
Of course it is the same rod.

And of course it is real events. What part of the definition of event is not fulfilled?

The argument is that it is not a changing in the order of events.

For every observer the order of events will be; First the pole enters the tunnel. Second the pole leaves the tunnel.

Nobody has a different order of events.

The appearance of the pole or the tunnel to various observers as this order of events takes place is not an order of events.

You are mashing up several concepts and making no sense.

I can take one person moving through a tunnel with a pole at a human speed and place two observers in different locations so that to one observer the back of the pole disappears before the front exits, that observer would be towards the front of the tunnel, and to another observer the back is still visible when the front leaves the tunnel, that observer would be to the side.

So to them it is exactly the same as your scenario. But obviously this is not evidence of a changing in the order of events. It is a change in the appearance of the event. Each observer has a different perspective and sees the same event differently. But the actual order of the event is not different for anyone.

The answer to the question of when does the front of the pole leave and the back enter will not have a single answer. The answer will be, It depends on your perspective, your frame of reference. Answers that depend on your frame of reference are not talking about order, they are talking about appearance.

 

[Juma]

I can take one person moving through a tunnel with a pole at a human speed and place two observers in different locations so that to one observer the back of the pole disappears before the front exits, that observer would be towards the front of the tunnel, and to another observer the back is still visible when the front leaves the tunnel, that observer would be to the side.

You have obviously not understood the example.

Let us put explosives on the ends of the pole and triggers on the ends of the tunnel so when an explosive passes its corresponding tunnel end it explodes. (Explosive A in the front end explodes at the exit and explosive B in the back end explodes at the entrance)

Then the order of the explosions will then be different for the runner than for the observer at rest.

Do you deny this ?

 

[untermensche]

I can take one person moving through a tunnel with a pole at a human speed and place two observers in different locations so that to one observer the back of the pole disappears before the front exits, that observer would be towards the front of the tunnel, and to another observer the back is still visible when the front leaves the tunnel, that observer would be to the side.

You have obviously not understood the example.

Let us put explosives on the ends of the pole and triggers on the ends of the tunnel so when an explosive passes its corresponding tunnel end it explodes. (Explosive A in the front end explodes at the exit and explosive B in the back end explodes at the entrance)

Then the order of the explosions will then be different for the runner than for the observer at rest.

Do you deny this ?

I'll address it but you should address my scenario of two observers in different places also supposedly seeing the order of events differently.

I would say they both see the explosions happening at the exact same moment in time. But their perspective is altered by the way time is "shaped" for them, just as each observer in my example is influenced by the way the tunnel is shaped for them in relation to the pole. Each observer in your scenario is experiencing a different "shape" of time. If we say that time is stretched more for one than another.

 

[skepticalbip]

I can take one person moving through a tunnel with a pole at a human speed and place two observers in different locations so that to one observer the back of the pole disappears before the front exits, that observer would be towards the front of the tunnel, and to another observer the back is still visible when the front leaves the tunnel, that observer would be to the side.

You have obviously not understood the example.

Let us put explosives on the ends of the pole and triggers on the ends of the tunnel so when an explosive passes its corresponding tunnel end it explodes. (Explosive A in the front end explodes at the exit and explosive B in the back end explodes at the entrance)

Then the order of the explosions will then be different for the runner than for the observer at rest.

Do you deny this ?

The main problem I have found in trying to explain relativity is that some people can not and refuse to accept that there is no preferred reference frame. Even if you can manage to convince them that the sequence of events can be observed differently in different reference frames, they will insist that there is only one “true reality” - the one that is observed from their preferred reference frame.

 

[untermensche]

You have obviously not understood the example.

Let us put explosives on the ends of the pole and triggers on the ends of the tunnel so when an explosive passes its corresponding tunnel end it explodes. (Explosive A in the front end explodes at the exit and explosive B in the back end explodes at the entrance)

Then the order of the explosions will then be different for the runner than for the observer at rest.

Do you deny this ?

The main problem I have found in trying to explain relativity is that some people can not and refuse to accept that there is no preferred reference frame. Even if you can manage to convince them that the sequence of events can be observed differently in different reference frames, they will insist that there is only one “true reality” - the one that is observed from their preferred reference frame.

Are you now saying that there is no reality? Or many realities?

Just because your view of reality changes depending on your velocity doesn't mean there are no or two realities.

If I walk around a building the view of the building changes. My frame of reference, my position in space changes. But the building does not change.

 

[skepticalbip]

Your "example" is only a change of perspective, not a change of reference frame.

 

[untermensche]

Your "example" is only a change of perspective, not a change of reference frame.

It is both a change in perspective and a change in my frame of reference, my position in space.

The change of my frame of reference creates the change in perspective.

 

[skepticalbip]

O.K., I used shorthand commonly used in physics. I should have said "inertial reference frame" but then since that is what the topic of discussion and the topic of relativity is all about it seemed rather redundant.

 

[Juma]

Are you now saying that there is no reality? Or many realities?

No, just that reality is more complex than you picture it:

Time a dimension, just like space.

You are right about perspectives, but the thing is: time is just another dimension. So the order of events really do depend on your perspective: your frame of reference.

 

[untermensche]

You are right about perspectives, but the thing is: time is just another dimension. So the order of events really do depend on your perspective: your frame of reference.

I would say that a significant difference in velocity changes your perspective of events so that the order of events looks different. Just as a change in your position can make the order of events look different.

 

[Kharakov]

I'll address it but you should address my scenario of two observers in different places also supposedly seeing the order of events differently.

It's called special relativity.

The length of the pole is the same as the length of the tunnel when both are in same reference frame (at rest relative to one another).

We'll have a stationary observer at the midpoint of the tunnel, and observer 2 being the runner carrying the pole.

.........................................O₁.........................................
.........................O₂.........................................................
O₂ is traveling towards the right ---->

When the poles ends cross the tunnel entrances, light reflects off of arbitrary things on the ends of the pole. The light will be emitted when O₁ and O₂ are alongside one another:


*>.........................................O₁.........................................<*
*>.........................................O₂.........................................<*

Neither see the light yet. O₂ continues running. The light travels, observer 2 runs:

.............*>............................O₁...........................<*.............
.............*>...................................O₂....................<*.............

Neither see the light yet, but untermensche might. Light continues to travel, light from the side of the tunnel the runner is traveling towards reaches the runner first- the pole looks like it exits the tunnel in front of the runner, while the runner has still not observed the pole entering the tunnel. Observer 1 (untermensche) will later conclude that observer 2 (everyone else) saw the light first.

...............................*>..........O₁.........<*.............................
...............................*>......................<O_2*...........................


Light from both ends reaches stationary observer 1. Observer 1 observes that the pole appears to have exited and entered the tunnel at the same time. Observer 2 has observed the exit of the pole from the end observer 2 is running towards, yet still has not seen the light from the pole entering the tunnel behind them.

.........................................<*O_1*>........................................
...........................................<*>....................O₂....................

Light from tunnel entrance reaches observer 2. Observer 2 observes that the pole exited the tunnel before it entered the tunnel.

...............<*..............,...........O₁.......................*>................
....................................................................*O₂>............

O₁ Pole appears to enter and exits tunnel at same time.
O₂ Pole exits tunnel before it enters.

O₁ and O₂ talk and conclude that relativistic length contraction made the tunnel appear shorter for observer 2.

 

[skepticalbip]

The main problem I have found in trying to explain relativity is that some people can not and refuse to accept that there is no preferred reference frame. Even if you can manage to convince them that the sequence of events can be observed differently in different reference frames, they will insist that there is only one “true reality” - the one that is observed from their preferred reference frame.

Are you now saying that there is no reality? Or many realities?

There is one reality as far as we know. However a description of that reality is dependent on the reference frame of the observer. There is no such observation that could be said to be THE truth. An observation from one reference frame that disagrees with or even contridicts an observation from another are both equally valid.

 

[untermensche]

I'll address it but you should address my scenario of two observers in different places also supposedly seeing the order of events differently.

It's called special relativity.

The length of the pole is the same as the length of the tunnel when both are in same reference frame (at rest relative to one another).

We'll have a stationary observer at the midpoint of the tunnel, and observer 2 being the runner carrying the pole.

.........................................O₁.........................................
.........................O₂.........................................................
O₂ is traveling towards the right ---->

When the poles ends cross the tunnel entrances, light reflects off of arbitrary things on the ends of the pole. The light will be emitted when O₁ and O₂ are alongside one another:


*>.........................................O₁.........................................<*
*>.........................................O₂.........................................<*

Neither see the light yet. O₂ continues running. The light travels, observer 2 runs:

.............*>............................O₁...........................<*.............
.............*>...................................O₂....................<*.............

Neither see the light yet, but untermensche might. Light continues to travel, light from the side of the tunnel the runner is traveling towards reaches the runner first- the pole looks like it exits the tunnel in front of the runner, while the runner has still not observed the pole entering the tunnel. Observer 1 (untermensche) will later conclude that observer 2 (everyone else) saw the light first.

...............................*>..........O₁.........<*.............................
...............................*>......................<O_2*...........................


Light from both ends reaches stationary observer 1. Observer 1 observes that the pole appears to have exited and entered the tunnel at the same time. Observer 2 has observed the exit of the pole from the end observer 2 is running towards, yet still has not seen the light from the pole entering the tunnel behind them.

.........................................<*O_1*>........................................
...........................................<*>....................O₂....................

Light from tunnel entrance reaches observer 2. Observer 2 observes that the pole exited the tunnel before it entered the tunnel.

...............<*..............,...........O₁.......................*>................
....................................................................*O₂>............

O₁ Pole appears to enter and exits tunnel at same time.
O₂ Pole exits tunnel before it enters.

O₁ and O₂ talk and conclude that relativistic length contraction made the tunnel appear shorter for observer 2.

This to me is nothing more than saying the same light strikes two observers at different positions at different times.

If you are a mile away and somebody else is two miles away and you both can see a light I shine, you will say the light started before the person two miles away says it started, when we know the light started once, not twice.

 

[Kharakov]

This to me is nothing more than saying the same light strikes two observers at different positions at different times.

Well, it should mean a lot more to you than that. I'm throwing out a bit more information to you, although I have not completely predigested it for you:

Photons travel at the same velocity- their velocity is the "standard candle" of measurement (in a vacuum, or specific medium).

Travel towards an emitted photon, and it is blue shifted, and travels a slightly shorter total distance.
O---> <*

Travel away from an emitted photon, and it is red shifted, and travels a slightly longer total distance.
<---O <*

A short (blue) and long (red) wavelength photon emitted from the same distance reach an observer, who is stationary relative to where they are emitted, at the same time.

r*>.........O..........<*b

So the wavelength of a photon does not change its velocity. Moving towards a photon does not change its velocity (it changes its wavelength relative to you).

If you knew the emitted wavelength of both photons (in the running/stationary observer example), and you knew the runner was moving at the same exact velocity the whole time, you could calculate from the redshift and blueshift of the photons that they were emitted at the same time. So you would know that the pole entered and exited the tunnel at the same time, even though you saw it exit before you saw it enter.

 

[skepticalbip]

If you are a mile away and somebody else is two miles away and you both can see a light I shine, you will say the light started before the person two miles away says it started, when we know the light started once, not twice.

That's a basic concept of SR- we're discussing something a bit more complicated than that.

Actually even more basic than SR. It is simple Newtonian or, even more basic, common sense of it takes longer to go further.