Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Imagine you are floating in space. You look towards the Earth's surface with a telescope and see a millisecond clock ticking slower than your millisecond clock. An observer that can see your clock from Earth will see your clock running faster.

Objectively speaking, which clock has the correct time? Of course there is no answer.

The perception of time for both is subjective.

The objective time is what they are both perceiving through their "lenses".

A reflection in a twisted mirror that creates a different distortion depending where you stand to look at it.

Each observer has a different picture but what is creating the picture is one thing.

Okay, I see.

 

[Kharakov]

But since you were wondering, Lorentz contraction is actually a real physical effect because the fabric of spacetime actually does "shrink" in the direction of travel.

You know what's funny, physicsforums is down for maintenance until tomorrow! However I did find the clarification I was seeking, although having just read Feynman's comments on questioning scientific authorities....

 

[skepticalbip]

Reality is objective.

Our perception of reality is subjective.

At first I wasn't sure how to explain to you what I thought was wrong with an objective reality, but now I feel like I have some input.

Imagine you are floating in space. You look towards the Earth's surface with a telescope and see a millisecond clock ticking slower than your millisecond clock. An observer that can see your clock from Earth will see your clock running faster.

Objectively speaking, which clock has the correct time? Of course there is no answer.

There is a basic problem. Unter- is making arguments based on common everyday experiences. Relativity describes effects that are outside our everyday experience. They are not intuitive.

Test 1:
Assume you and a friend try an experiment. He rides his motorcycle toward you at 10 mph and you throw a ball toward him at 20 mph. You will both see the ball approaching him at 30 mph.

Now he rides away from you at 10 mph and you throw the ball toward him at 20 mph. You will both see the ball approaching at 10 mph.

That is our normal everyday experience.

Test 2: (replace the friend on a motorcycle with you on a satellite and the tossed ball with light from the sun)
Assume you are orbiting the Earth at 17,000 mph. As you cross the Earth’s orbital path approaching the sun you measure the speed of light from the sun and find it to be 670,616,629 mph.

Now as you cross the Earth’s orbital path going away from the sun you measure the speed of light from the sun again and find it to be 670,616,629 mph.

There was 34,000 mph difference in the measurements relative to the sun. Why didn’t you see that difference in the measured speed of the sun’s light like you did with the ball and motorcycle in the first test?

This was Einstein’s question. After years of consideration and mathematical analysis, the only solution he could find was that time and space was relative to his velocity vector with respect to the source of the light. Time slows and distance shrinks with velocity… relativity.

Since his paper was published there have been many experiments verifying not only that time and space are relative to velocity but much more.

 

[Kharakov]

The fact remains, seeing the same event differently is not the same thing as seeing two different events.

Defining more than one event as a single event.... seems sloppy. Not that sloppy is wrong.

 

[untermensche]

This was Einstein’s question. After years of consideration and mathematical analysis, the only solution he could find was that time and space was relative to his velocity vector with respect to the source of the light. Time slows and distance shrinks with velocity… relativity.

I'm not doubting Einstein in the least.

But you seem to think that we don't already understand relativity. We know that the view of a mountain is relative to where we stand to look at it.

We already have an understanding that changing our frame of reference can change our perceptions.

As far as the speed of light always appearing constant, that is not confusing to us.

Light moves at a speed we can't comprehend. We wouldn't notice if it slowed or sped up a little.

 

[untermensche]

The fact remains, seeing the same event differently is not the same thing as seeing two different events.

Defining more than one event as a single event.... seems sloppy. Not that sloppy is wrong.

I said it doesn't matter.

Seeing a billion events differently is not the same as seeing two billion events.

 

[skepticalbip]

This was Einstein’s question. After years of consideration and mathematical analysis, the only solution he could find was that time and space was relative to his velocity vector with respect to the source of the light. Time slows and distance shrinks with velocity… relativity.

I'm not doubting Einstein in the least.

And yet you continue to contridict him.

But you seem to think that we don't already understand relativity. We know that the view of a mountain is relative to where we stand to look at it.

That has nothing to do with the theory of relativity. That is Newtonian that only applies in the limits where relative velocities are insignificant with respect to light. This is the Test 1 in my earlier post with the ball and motorcycle. Relativity deals with reality at at higher relative velocities.

We already have an understanding that changing our frame of reference can change our perceptions.

As far as the speed of light always appearing constant, that is not confusing to us.

Light moves at a speed we can't comprehend. We wouldn't notice if it slowed or sped up a little.

Maybe you can't comprehend it but physicists have absolutely no problem comprehending it. It is easily and often measured at a resolution of less than one mph. Such a measurement can be and is done in undergraduate physics labs.

The problem is that you have absolutely no clue what the theory of relativity is about if you think this post has anything to do with it.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not doubting Einstein in the least.

But you seem to think that we don't already understand relativity. We know that the view of a mountain is relative to where we stand to look at it.

That has nothing to do with the theory of relativity. That is Newtonian that only applies in the limits where relative velocities are insignificant with respect to light. Relativity deals with reality at at higher relative velocities.

I said it had something to do with changing appearances based on changing frames of reference. Which is relativity. The appearance of things changes, except the speed of light, depending on your frame of reference.

Maybe you can't comprehend it but physicists have absolutely no problem comprehending it. It is easily and often measured at a resolution of less than one mph.

I didn't say we couldn't use a piece of equipment to measure the speed of light.

But our commonplace experience with light is that it is too fast to judge it's speed. So hearing that it's speed is always seen as the same is no big difference from our normal perception of it. We aren't shocked by that news.

The problem is that you have absolutely no clue what the theory of relativity is about if you think this post has anything to do with it.

I couldn't do the math.

 

[skepticalbip]

That has nothing to do with the theory of relativity. That is Newtonian that only applies in the limits where relative velocities are insignificant with respect to light. Relativity deals with reality at at higher relative velocities.

I said it had something to do with changing appearances based on changing frames of reference. Which is relativity. The appearance of things changes, except the speed of light, depending on your frame of reference.

In common language you could say that the views are relative to where you stand but that has nothing to do with Einstein's theory of relativity. As I said, your posts indicate that you don't have a clue what the theory is about.

Maybe you can't comprehend it but physicists have absolutely no problem comprehending it. It is easily and often measured at a resolution of less than one mph.

I didn't say we couldn't use a piece of equipment to measure the speed of light.

But our commonplace experience with light is that it is too fast to judge it's speed. So hearing that it's speed is always seen as the same is no big difference from our normal perception of it. We aren't shocked by that news.

The commonplace everyday experiences of people that have no understanding or interest in physics and the nature of the universe beyond their local area (Earth) is not what relativity is about.

The problem is that you have absolutely no clue what the theory of relativity is about if you think this post has anything to do with it.

I couldn't do the math.

It apparently goes beyond not being able to do the math. I see no evidence of even being able to understand the issues addressed.

 

[Kharakov]

Defining more than one event as a single event.... seems sloppy. Not that sloppy is wrong.

I said it doesn't matter.

Given your past comments, I'll take your word for it without an explanation.

Seeing a billion events differently is not the same as seeing two billion events.

If you aren't aware that seeing an event is not the event itself, but is another event... all of which belong to a continuum.

 

[untermensche]

I said it had something to do with changing appearances based on changing frames of reference. Which is relativity. The appearance of things changes, except the speed of light, depending on your frame of reference.

In common language you could say that the views are relative to where you stand but that has nothing to do with Einstein's theory of relativity. As I said, your posts indicate that you don't have a clue what the theory is about.

What specifically do you think I don't know? Do you also think I can't learn?

You seem to think that changing appearance based on changing frame of reference is not part of relativity.

Is that it?

The commonplace everyday experiences of people that have no understanding or interest in physics and the nature of the universe beyond their local area (Earth) is not what relativity is about.

That's exactly what I said.

Even if you know nothing about physics hearing that the speed of light always appears to be the same is not some big shock. Light moves so fast to us it appears instantaneous. Hearing that it has a speed is more shocking than hearing the speed is always seen the same.

It is not like in quantum physics where it is said that one thing can be in two locations at the same time. To us that is shocking.

I see no evidence of even being able to understand the issues addressed.

I don't see any specific that needs work. Not from you.

 

[untermensche]

If you aren't aware that seeing an event is not the event itself, but is another event... all of which belong to a continuum.

Seeing the event is seeing the event.

But the event can appear differently depending on your frame of reference.

People with color blindness are looking at the exact same thing you are. They are seeing it differently though.

To have a relative view of something requires there be something to view.

 

[skepticalbip]

In common language you could say that the views are relative to where you stand but that has nothing to do with Einstein's theory of relativity. As I said, your posts indicate that you don't have a clue what the theory is about.

What specifically do you think I don't know? Do you also think I can't learn?

You seem to think that changing appearance based on changing frame of reference is not part of relativity.

Is that it?

The commonplace everyday experiences of people that have no understanding or interest in physics and the nature of the universe beyond their local area (Earth) is not what relativity is about.

That's exactly what I said.

Even if you know nothing about physics hearing that the speed of light always appears to be the same is not some big shock. Light moves so fast to us it appears instantaneous. Hearing that it has a speed is more shocking than hearing the speed is always seen the same.

It is not like in quantum physics where it is said that one thing can be in two locations at the same time. To us that is shocking.

I see no evidence of even being able to understand the issues addressed.

I don't see any specific that needs work. Not from you.

 

[untermensche]

This is what asking for specifics gets me.

You're good at throwing blanket statements.

Not so good at backing them up with specific references.

For example:

you don't have a clue what the theory is about

I would say the truth is, I don't know the math behind it, which is important.

But from those who claim to know the math I have read and heard many things.

I'll ask you something.

How fast are you presently moving?

How fast is the multiverse moving?

 

[Kharakov]

If you aren't aware that seeing an event is not the event itself, but is another event... all of which belong to a continuum.

But the event can appear differently depending on your frame of reference.

You can look at it as many events, or one. Not sure which is more pragmatic for the sake of interesting conversation.

People with color blindness are looking at the exact same thing you are. They are seeing it differently though.

To have a relative view of something requires there be something to view.

Something rather than someone, ehh?

 

[skepticalbip]

This is what asking for specifics gets me.

You're good at throwing blanket statements.

Not so good at backing them up with specific references.

For example:

you don't have a clue what the theory is about

I have given examples but you didn't understand them. As far as specifics that you don't know? I haven't seen any evidence that you even understand what Einstein's relativity is about.

You want an example of time dilation demonstrated. The muon is an unstable subatomic particle with a mean lifetime of 2.2 µs. This time is too short for them to be observed for many of the tests that were desired in our colliders. The solution? Accelerate them to near c. At that speed they live long enough to reach detectors that had been too far from the point of collision.

I would say the truth is, I don't know the math behind it, which is important.

But from those who claim to know the math I have read and heard many things.

I'll ask you something.

How fast are you presently moving?

How fast is the multiverse moving?

This part of your post is just gibberish.

Now why don't you demonstrate your understanding of what relativity is about? Maybe tell me about the orbit of Mercury and how relativity is significant in understanding it. Or maybe explain how relativity predicted the gravitational lensing we see in the distant universe.

 

[Juma]

If you aren't aware that seeing an event is not the event itself, but is another event... all of which belong to a continuum.

Seeing the event is seeing the event.

But the event can appear differently depending on your frame of reference.

People with color blindness are looking at the exact same thing you are. They are seeing it differently though.

To have a relative view of something requires there be something to view.

Do you know what the light-cone of a position (in space time) is? It is the cone that is traced by all possible light paths from a specific position in space-time. In 2d with time as z-axis this will look as a cone with apex in origo and open upward, adding light that will end in the position and you get another cone opened downward.

What is the significance of this "double" cone?

Reflect on this:

"An event judged to be in the light cone by one observer, will also be judged to be in the same light cone by all other observers, no matter their frame of reference."

This is your "objective" property you are searching for.

Note that the order of events that does not have this relationship can then differ for different observers.

And no, it has nothing to do with "different viewpoint".
You can be at the exact same time and position and observe very different scenarios, only because of your different velocities.

Wether the pole is inside or not inside the tunnel depends on your speed.

 

[Kharakov]

Wether the pole is inside or not inside the tunnel depends on your speed.

And the pole's speed relative to the tunnel...

 

[Juma]

Wether the pole is inside or not inside the tunnel depends on your speed.

And the pole's speed relative to the tunnel...

Yes! <blush/>

 

[Kharakov]

And the pole's speed relative to the tunnel...

Yes! <blush/>

It's one of those very important things to consider during intimate moments...