Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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.

What you are talking about is the "relativity of simultaneity".

I know Wikipedia is not the final word on anything but this is what is written in the relativity of simultaneity section.

According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

You seem to be implying that it is in indeed possible to say that two distinct events occur at the same time while those events are separated in space.

I think you are arguing against our current understanding of relativity.

 

[Kharakov]

Eh.. if you read the rest of the paragraph after that sentence.

 

[untermensche]

Eh.. if you read the rest of the paragraph after that sentence.

For example, a car crash in London and another in New York, which appear to happen at the same time to an observer on the earth, will appear to have occurred at slightly different times to an observer on an airplane flying between London and New York. The question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in the stationary earth reference frame the two accidents may happen at the same time but in other frames (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still other frames the New York crash may occur first. However, if the two events could be causally connected (i.e. the time between event A and event B is greater than the distance between them divided by the speed of light), the order is preserved (i.e., "event A precedes event B") in all frames of reference.

This supports the statement.

This is no different than the pole example.

The observation of the front and back of the pole both hidden by the tunnel is just a relative observation.

It is not the objective order of events.

Since no observer can say they are seeing the objective order of events, the order is relative, how do we say the order has changed? The only thing that has changed is how the event appears to different observers.

 

[Kharakov]

The question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in the stationary earth reference frame the two accidents may happen at the same time but in other frames (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still other frames the New York crash may occur first.

This supports the statement.

It doesn't support your statements "You seem to be implying that it is in indeed possible to say that two distinct events occur at the same time while those events are separated in space. I think you are arguing against our current understanding of relativity."

It is not the objective order of events.

Order of events can be switched- in some cases "observers" are simply molecules receiving photons from the event. This means that momentum is transferred, which is part of physical causality. This is why the effects of SR are considered "real"- they are not only something that someone observes- various events in reality actually conform to SR (at least according to the books I've read on the subject, I also read the bible and have somewhat of an understanding of it...).

Since no observer can say they are seeing the objective order of events, the order is relative, how do we say the order has changed? The only thing that has changed is how the event appears to different observers.

Like I said in the italicized portion of my statement above- there are objective effects on reality, according to SR.

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't support your statements "You seem to be implying that it is in indeed possible to say that two distinct events occur at the same time while those events are separated in space. I think you are arguing against our current understanding of relativity."

It sure does. That is why the sentence was put there and it remains.

You just don't either understand it or like it.

According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

It is you arguing just the opposite.

It is you that doesn't have a clue.

 

[Kharakov]

It sure does. That is why the sentence was put there and it remains.

You just don't either understand it or like it.

That's not true, I both understand and like your statement. I don't think your statement means what you think it means:

You seem to be implying that it is in indeed possible to say that two distinct events occur at the same time while those events are separated in space. I think you are arguing against our current understanding of relativity.

2 events can occur at the same time from a specific frame of reference, when separated by space (which is the implication of the rest of the paragraph). They can also occur at different times from other frames of reference.

In other words, 2 distinct events can occur at the same time from certain frames of reference (say, 2 lights are turned on at equal distances from an observation point that is at rest relative to the lights).

According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

It is you arguing just the opposite.

No. I'm not arguing against the statement you quoted from Wikipedia- I'm saying your statement is a misrepresentation of what that statement means, and that the rest of the paragraph after the statement provides context and clues about how and why your statement is a misrepresentation of the above quote.

The statement means that different frames of reference will experience events as occurring at different times compared to one another. A and B could be switched in order, occur at a closer or longer interval to one another, etc. They can also occur at the same time.

Your statement indicates that you believe that SR implies that 2 events cannot occur at the same time- this is not true. They can, and do. The "absolute sense" that the wikipedia article refers to the fact that different frames of reference experience different time intervals between the events (and even switch the order of events in certain circumstances).

It is you that doesn't have a clue.

How would my lack of or possession of a clue have an effect upon the accuracy of your statement?

 

[skepticalbip]

You need to keep throwing in one of the laws of relativity:

"THERE IS NO PREFERRED REFERENCE FRAME".

 

[Juma]

You seem to be implying that it is in indeed possible to say that two distinct events occur at the same time while those events are separated in space.

Since this is trivially true (things do occur simultanious, but not necessarily to all observers) I suspect you really want to say something else. Did you forget a "objectively" somewhere in that post?

 

[Juma]

The observation of the front and back of the pole both hidden by the tunnel is just a relative observation.

It is not the objective order of events.

Yes it is. All reference frames have the same objectivity. There is no single order that is the objectively correct one, making all others just "relative".

 

[skepticalbip]

The rod passing through the tunnel is a Gedanken experiment that confuses understanding of special relativity more than clarifys it by introducing common experience (a tunnel with fixed length) so that we think in terms of common everyday phenomena.

The question is, is the length of the rod the same in all reference frames? If not, is there one reference frame that is “reality” with all others erroneous? If it is assumed that there is one preferred reference frame then how could anyone determine which?

Assume two space ships approaching each other. One fires a rod toward the other. Another space ship is watching it all. All three space ships will “measure” the rod to have different lengths. Which, if any, is right or are they all right? Each will measure the time it takes the rod to pass from one ship to the other differently. Which, if any, is right or are they all right?

 

[Kharakov]

If not, is there one reference frame that is “reality” with all others erroneous? If it is assumed that there is one preferred reference frame then how could anyone determine which?

Here's a fun one:

Why doesn't a rotating individual see a distant star as having infinite length contraction?

Show

Homer Simpson voice "Finite mass... infinite mass... finite mass.... infinite mass, wheeeeee!!!"

 

[skepticalbip]

If not, is there one reference frame that is “reality” with all others erroneous? If it is assumed that there is one preferred reference frame then how could anyone determine which?

Here's a fun one:

Why doesn't a rotating individual see a distant star as having infinite length contraction?

Show

Homer Simpson voice "Finite mass... infinite mass... finite mass.... infinite mass, wheeeeee!!!"

I like it. Thanks.

That is similar to the kind of arguments that often comes up when talking about special relativity. But special relativity doesn't cover acceleration (rotation is an acceleration). General relativity handles it quite nicely.

 

[Juma]

The rod passing through the tunnel is a Gedanken experiment that confuses understanding of special relativity more than clarifys it by introducing common experience (a tunnel with fixed length) so that we think in terms of common everyday phenomena.

1) i dont see any problem with it. Any example will bring in common experience so that is really not an issue.

2)The purpose of the example is to show relativity of the order of events and the specific point of it is to realize hoe our common experience of an objective now fails.

 

[Juma]

Why doesn't a rotating individual see a distant star as having infinite length contraction?

why should she?

 

[skepticalbip]

The rod passing through the tunnel is a Gedanken experiment that confuses understanding of special relativity more than clarifys it by introducing common experience (a tunnel with fixed length) so that we think in terms of common everyday phenomena.

1) i dont see any problem with it. Any example will bring in common experience so that is really not an issue.

2)The purpose of the example is to show relativity of the order of events and the specific point of it is to realize hoe our common experience of an objective now fails.

I agree that there is no problem with it if the person you are talking with already understands the basics of special relativity. However, if they don't then it is only more confusing because of their tendency to see a preferred reference frame. It is easier to explain the basics if you remove the explanation from common everyday reference frame they are familiar with and generally assume as the preferred frame, the Earth.

Once they understand relative time, length, sequence of events, etc. then this thought experiment is good for examining what those who have no understand of SR see as paradoxes.

 

[untermensche]

The observation of the front and back of the pole both hidden by the tunnel is just a relative observation.

It is not the objective order of events.

Yes it is. All reference frames have the same objectivity. There is no single order that is the objectively correct one, making all others just "relative".

No it is not. The order can change depending on who looks at it. Something that changes depending on who looks at it is not objective.

We could ask; What is the objective length of the pole?

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes it is. All reference frames have the same objectivity. There is no single order that is the objectively correct one, making all others just "relative".

No it is not. The order can change depending on who looks at it. Something that changes depending on who looks at it is not objective.

We could ask; What is the objective length of the pole?

That is asking what is the objective reference frame. Special relativity's answer is they all are.

 

[untermensche]

No it is not. The order can change depending on who looks at it. Something that changes depending on who looks at it is not objective.

We could ask; What is the objective length of the pole?

That is asking what is the objective (preferred) reference frame.

We agree.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is asking what is the objective (preferred) reference frame.

We agree.

Then you don't understand what you think you agree with.

 

[untermensche]

This thread to me is mostly about this concept of an infinite amount of things that are real.

Can we travel at the speed of light?

Can we provide infinite energy to do it?

- - - Updated - - -

We agree.

Then you don't understand what you think you agree with.

We don't agree.