Infinte Regress Timeline...

[George S]

Runner Tunnel
An observer has installed a switch that simultaneously closes two doors at the end of the tunnel which is 1 cm shorter than the pole. Or the pole is 1 cm longer than the tunnel. The switch is thrown when the pole is in the middle (the middle of the pole is a trigger at the exact middle. (he has to run at a significant portion of light speed to shorten a 10 m pole 1 cm.)

The observer stationary at the middle sees both doors close and open without nicking either end of the pole. It is physically shorter when the non-moving observer measures it. To the runner the door at the far end closes and opens before the rear door closes, missing the pole.

Both are right.

Now add a runner going the other way with an identical pole. Timing is such that they are at the middle at the exact same time. This runner sees the doors open and close in the reverse order.

Two doors open and close. Door A and door B are operated simultaneously for the stationary observer. Runner 1 sees B operate before A. Runner 2 sees A operate before B. All are right.

 

[untermensche]

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.

I have no problem with this.

No observer can say this is the order of things. They can only say this is how I perceive the order of things.

The order of things is something else. It is not my subjective observation.

But there is an order to things. Plates fall down and break. The pieces do not jump up and reassemble.

The past is the same thing for everyone, even if they observed the present differently.

 

[untermensche]

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.

This is exactly what I've been saying.

The appearance of the situation differs, not the situation itself.

The runner is not only in a different position when the light is seen from the stationary observer the runner is experiencing time as moving slower. The frame of reference for the two is different. The situation they are observing is not two things. The situation is not a subjective thing. Only an observation of it is.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

I have no problem with this.

No observer can say this is the order of things. They can only say this is how I perceive the order of things.

The order of things is something else. It is not my subjective observation.

It isn't a subjective observation. It is an objective observation. You seem to be saying that other observations have to be converted to your observations in your inertial frame of reference where observations are the only "real and accurate truth" - that observations from your prefered frame are the only objective observations.

But there is an order to things. Plates fall down and break. The pieces do not jump up and reassemble.

The inertial frame that could see that would have to be moving at FTL with respect to the plate. We can't do that but if we could then time would indeed run backwards and the reality for that frame would be exactly what you describe.

The past is the same thing for everyone, even if they observed the present differently.

No.

 

[untermensche]

It isn't a subjective observation. It is an objective observation. You seem to be saying that other observations have to be converted to your observations in your inertial frame of reference where observations are the only "real and accurate truth".

I am saying it is a single event, not two events. If two observers see the same event as having a different order that is because of the subjective nature of their observation that is tied to different frames of reference.

The past is the same thing for everyone, even if they observed the present differently.

No.

Yes.

The past is separated from our subjective experience that is tied to an arbitrary frame of reference.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

This is exactly what I've been saying.

The appearance of the situation differs, not the situation itself.

The runner is not only in a different position when the light is seen from the stationary observer the runner is experiencing time as moving slower. The frame of reference for the two is different. The situation they are observing is not two things. The situation is not a subjective thing. Only an observation of it is.

What I said in italics is... well, not completely true, and somewhat misleading.

Electromagnetic force depends on the velocity of light- particles interact through it, and it is transmitted through virtual photons (or photons). The pole's structure itself is dependent upon the velocity of light.

Light whose total velocity is c. So the structure of the pole itself appears differently, and it would act differently. Experiments confirm this.

 

[untermensche]

Light whose total velocity is c. So the structure of the pole itself appears differently, and it would act differently. Experiments confirm this.

The pole appears different. The tunnel appears different. And time is experienced differently between the two observers.

They have different frames of reference.

So the event appears differently.

But it is only one event, not two.

Just as walking around the building changes the frame of reference and the appearance changes.

 

[skepticalbip]

I am saying it is a single event, not two events. If two observers see the same event as having a different order that is because of the subjective nature of their observation that is tied to different frames of reference.

It isn't any more subjective than the observation that you make from your frame.

That was my question earlier. If observations from different frames (your observations are from your frame) disagree then how do you determine which is "real" if reality isn't relative making both observations valid?

Your answer to this earlier was that everyone saw the same thing but you appear to be past that thinking now. So how about trying again since you will agree that your earlier answer was wrong.

 

[untermensche]

I am saying it is a single event, not two events. If two observers see the same event as having a different order that is because of the subjective nature of their observation that is tied to different frames of reference.

It isn't any more subjective than the observation that you make from your frame.

That was my question earlier. If observations from different frames (your observations are from your frame) disagree then how do you determine which is "real" if reality isn't relative making both observations valid?

Both observations are subjective.

Real is that which causes us to have an observation. But how we observe "real" is subjective.

 

[skepticalbip]

It isn't any more subjective than the observation that you make from your frame.

That was my question earlier. If observations from different frames (your observations are from your frame) disagree then how do you determine which is "real" if reality isn't relative making both observations valid?

Both observations are subjective.

Real is that which causes us to have an observation. But how we observe "real" is subjective.

What we have to do to make our GPS system work would seem to be in conflict with this idea that it is only subjective.

 

[untermensche]

Both observations are subjective.

Real is that which causes us to have an observation. But how we observe "real" is subjective.

What we have to do to make our GPS system work would seem to be in conflict with this idea that it is only subjective.

Just the opposite.

Because it is subjective we have to align our subjective experience with the subjective experience of the satellites. We have to correct for the difference in the two subjective experiences.

 

[skepticalbip]

What we have to do to make our GPS system work would seem to be in conflict with this idea that it is only subjective.

Just the opposite.

Because it is subjective we have to align our subjective experience with the subjective experience of the satellites. We have to correct for the difference in the two subjective experiences.

That doesn't even pretend to make sense.

 

[untermensche]

Just the opposite.

Because it is subjective we have to align our subjective experience with the subjective experience of the satellites. We have to correct for the difference in the two subjective experiences.

That doesn't even pretend to make sense.

Our clocks are slightly different from the clocks in the satellites.

We correct for this subjective difference.

What is so hard?

 

[Kharakov]

Light whose total velocity is c. So the structure of the pole itself appears differently, and it would act differently. Experiments confirm this.

The pole appears different. The tunnel appears different. And time is experienced differently between the two observers.

They have different frames of reference.

So the event appears differently.

But it is only one event, not two.

It's not one event, it is many (there are well over 10^40 events within your body every second- might even be infinite numbers of events when we look at scales under the Planck).

That's the point of SR, and length contraction. Countless photon mediated events occur within the pole- and photons only travel a certain distance in spacetime per unit length compared to any observer. The size of the pole is determined by the distance of the virtual photons mediating the electromagnetic interaction between particles- and those virtual photons only travel a certain distance compared to any observer.

That's why they say step into the light...

 

[untermensche]

It's not one event, it is many (there are well over 10^40 events within your body every second- might even be infinite numbers of events when we look at scales under the Planck)....

This is true but the situation was abstracted to be just a pole moving through a tunnel.

That abstracted situation deals with one event not two.

That one event is seen differently by two different observers with two different frames of reference.

 

[Kharakov]

It's not one event, it is many (there are well over 10^40 events within your body every second- might even be infinite numbers of events when we look at scales under the Planck)....

This is true but the situation was abstracted to be just a pole moving through a tunnel.

That abstracted situation deals with one event not two.

The pole entering and exiting the tunnel is 2 events. The pole exiting the tunnel, and the observation of it exiting the tunnel is 2 events. I'd enjoy seeing a logical explanation of how a multitude of events is 1 event. I'll be holding my breath in anticipation as I read your next post!

Are you sure that the ~10^30+ EM events that occur within the pole each second are not involved with relativistic length contraction?

 

[untermensche]

This is true but the situation was abstracted to be just a pole moving through a tunnel.

That abstracted situation deals with one event not two.

The pole entering and exiting the tunnel is 2 events. The pole exiting the tunnel, and the observation of it exiting the tunnel is 2 events. I'd enjoy seeing a logical explanation of how a multitude of events is 1 event. I'll be holding my breath in anticipation as I read your next post!

Are you sure that the ~10^30+ EM events that occur within the pole each second are not involved with relativistic length contraction?

I've discussed this.

The single event, or two events, or a billion events, is/are seen differently because the viewing is done under different conditions.

Seeing the same thing differently is not the same as seeing two separate things.

 

[George S]

unter,

There is no preferred frame of reference. Reality is a local phenomenon. We agree on nearby events.

In every frame of reference light goes c. That is nature's way of telling reality how fast clocks tick. But clocks are made of matter. Matter fills apace with a gravity field. Gravity fields affect how fast clocks run.

The GPS clock works just fine. Keeps perfect time. In that frame of reference. It is when we compare the number of clicks we see from or vantage point, our frame of reference, the GPS clock is running wrong. If we took a clock up to it to see why the rate is wrong, it synchs in rhythm to the one we brought along.

Time is a local phenomenon, as changeable as weather.

 

[Kharakov]

The pole entering and exiting the tunnel is 2 events. The pole exiting the tunnel, and the observation of it exiting the tunnel is 2 events. I'd enjoy seeing a logical explanation of how a multitude of events is 1 event. I'll be holding my breath in anticipation as I read your next post!

Are you sure that the ~10^30+ EM events that occur within the pole each second are not involved with relativistic length contraction?

I've discussed this.

The single event, or two events, or a billion events, is/are seen differently because the viewing is done under different conditions.

Seeing the same thing differently is not the same as seeing two separate things.

Yeah. I just don't get how the pole entering the tunnel is the same event as it exiting the tunnel?

I'd think someone with an understanding of relativity would have criticized my claim about length contraction being related to the individual EM events within the pole. I'd think you would notice that time dilation is related to the events within the pole- if length contraction was related to events within the pole, the pole's diameter would also contract.

 

[skepticalbip]

unter,

There is no preferred frame of reference. Reality is a local phenomenon. We agree on nearby events.

In every frame of reference light goes c. That is nature's way of telling reality how fast clocks tick. But clocks are made of matter. Matter fills apace with a gravity field. Gravity fields affect how fast clocks run.

The GPS clock works just fine. Keeps perfect time. In that frame of reference. It is when we compare the number of clicks we see from or vantage point, our frame of reference, the GPS clock is running wrong. If we took a clock up to it to see why the rate is wrong, it synchs in rhythm to the one we brought along.

Time is a local phenomenon, as changeable as weather.

You are wasting your time trying to explain how well we understand, have verified, and use relativistic effects like time dilation, Lorentz contraction, etc. in our technology, Unter- won't be convinced. He is just flailing and arm waving trying to make an argument that Einstein was an idiot because if relativity were true then he would know all about it.