The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is distance an absolute invariant?  (Read 16281 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #25 on: 31/01/2016 07:14:53 »

Edit:  Otherwise, logically speaking, 'distance' has been rendered as a variable!
Yes, you understand distance and time are variable under SR for a non local observer, and you understand that light only has constant speed for a local observer in a gravitational field under GR. however, if you read The Box's other posts you will realise that he claims that the speed of light is variable under SR, that is it follows Galilean Relativity not SR. This is why he thinks distance is constant for all observers.
This is an instance where learning requires a pupil willing to learn. Despite that, do try, maybe you will succeed.

Any of you please try to explain that distance is a variable, you would be talking out your backsides.  Nothing to do with my understanding of SR, it is garbage. Length does not change of space. 1Ly is 1Ly, and Galilean relativity?  never heard of it , it is my relativity .  A caesium atom is not time, it is a rate and like you put a ?

?lesser speed of rate/d?


go on let us all here the evidence of how?

Firstly you can point me to the observation experiment and proof.

« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 07:20:25 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #26 on: 31/01/2016 07:26:54 »
my understanding of SR, it is garbage. ........... Galilean relativity?  never heard of it ,

ipsi dixit.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #27 on: 31/01/2016 07:29:19 »
ipsi dixit.
Never heard of it honestly, I thought Galileo was something to do with star charts?

I use my own ideas for my ideas, I do not even consider your science at times, my science seems more reality.  My reality revolves around the clarity of space. The invariant of clarity is an absolute, the invariant of distance is an absolute.

Spectral colours are individual invariants that are a variate of the invariant of clarity. I have told you before that I thought Einstein meant ,


I am sure ze answer is within ze optics, ze optics are ze constant, we observe optic variation of ze constant moving within ze invariant clarity of ze constant, relatively ze constant clarity is ze stationary invariant reference frame for all ze observers.


Understand this -

equipment - 1 candle , 1 lighter, 1 dark warehouse, several various objects, a marker pen to draw a circle.
 
 
Method -
1.place candle in a central position in the warehouse,
2. draw several circles on the floor isotropic to the candle, at different radius's
3. On each circle circumference line place an object
4. turn the lights off
5. light the candle
6. observe how many objects you can see, from the candle reference point, observe no walls , just darkness,
 
candle.....A.....B.....C.....D......E.....F
 
 
The intensity relatively defining how big your observed space is.

« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 08:31:34 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #28 on: 31/01/2016 09:07:28 »
Ir = I0/r2 in my universe. What happens in yours?
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #29 on: 31/01/2016 09:35:18 »
Firstly you can point me to the observation experiment and proof.
Please follow Alan's suggestions in post #9.
It is not the purpose of this forum to provided a full course of science, you have to do some work yourself.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #30 on: 31/01/2016 09:38:04 »
Ir = I0/r2 in my universe. What happens in yours?

I can't read your equation, I presume (I ) is imaginary number?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #31 on: 31/01/2016 09:39:52 »
Firstly you can point me to the observation experiment and proof.
Please follow Alan's suggestions in post #9.
It is not the purpose of this forum to provided a full course of science, you have to do some work yourself.

I looked at Alan's link, it says some maths about length contraction, it does not provide any proof's of length contradiction, now if one stated that length contraction was just a Hypothesis, then maybe I could conceive the possibility.

 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #32 on: 31/01/2016 10:07:32 »
Everything in science is hypothesis, so why should I state the obvious.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. 

In this section of the forum we discuss those theories considered to be reasonably consistent with observations and other theories. If you have an alternative theory you are welcome to discuss it in New Theories.

You still need to do a lot of homework before you get near the starting block. Start by understanding dimensional analysis; then to be understood you need to use standard scientific terminology to describe your ideas rather than inventing you own language and interpretations.
Practice in New Theories until you get it right.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #33 on: 31/01/2016 10:22:10 »
Everything in science is hypothesis, so why should I state the obvious.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. 

In this section of the forum we discuss those theories considered to be reasonably consistent with observations and other theories. If you have an alternative theory you are welcome to discuss it in New Theories.

You still need to do a lot of homework before you get near the starting block. Start by understanding dimensional analysis; then to be understood you need to use standard scientific terminology to describe your ideas rather than inventing you own language and interpretations.
Practice in New Theories until you get it right.

Hmm, OK let me play along and ask about dimensional analysis,

''analysis using the fact that physical quantities added to or equated with each other must be expressed in terms of the same fundamental quantities''



ok I want to analyse time and distance relationship,

I will set a quantity distance  of 299 792 458 m and a time of the distance is equal to 1 second of time.

Both fundamental quantities

I will compare this to the measurement dimension of time


299 792 458 m =  9,192,631,770 Hz. =1 second


So far using your fundamental quantities.

So for  9,192,631,770 Hz to change, 1 second  would have to change, which time dilation says it does,

but 299 792 458 m does not change,

So if we take two equal lengths of 1 second


0..............................1
0..............................1


and we measure a rate of something between 0 and 1

the 1 st result
0..................1
 9,192,631,770

the second result

0..................1
 9,192,631,760


How exactly does this contract the length of 1 second?

relatively

0..................1
 9,192,631,770

0............(.9)
 9,192,631,760

My distance is not synchronous, so what is going wrong with my understanding? 







« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 10:51:06 by Thebox »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #34 on: 31/01/2016 13:00:58 »
Ok, so first thing, your maths are wrong.

If you want to get 0.9 of a second, you need to divide your caesium atoms number of cycles by 10 and then subtract the answer from the original figure.  You will see that this amounts to a lot more than you have allowed for.

Next, you need to understand that the caesium atom's cycles are subject to a change in their frequency due to changes in a gravitational field.

Should be all plain sailing from there... I reckon... :)
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #35 on: 31/01/2016 13:13:21 »
Ok, so first thing, your maths are wrong.

If you want to get 0.9 of a second, you need to divide your caesium atoms number of cycles by 10 and then subtract the answer from the original figure.  You will see that this amounts to a lot more than you have allowed for.

Next, you need to understand that the caesium atom's cycles are subject to a change in their frequency due to changes in a gravitational field.

Should be all plain sailing from there... I reckon... :)

I know the representation of .9 is wrong , it was just a rough example,

and yes I know the frequency changes due to gravitational field.

 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #36 on: 31/01/2016 14:07:49 »
Hmm, OK let me play along and ask about dimensional analysis,

''analysis using the fact that physical quantities added to or equated with each other must be expressed in terms of the same fundamental quantities''
.....

299 792 458 m =  9,192,631,770 Hz. =1 second
No, before you go any further your dimensional analysis is wrong.
Read what you quoted.
It means the dimensions on each side of the equals sign must be the same.
You cannot have m=Hz=s
You have to end up with the same units on each side of the equation
You have to start here before trying to go on.
if you have Hz on one side you must have Hz on the other which are also cycles/s
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #37 on: 31/01/2016 14:23:20 »
Hmm, OK let me play along and ask about dimensional analysis,

''analysis using the fact that physical quantities added to or equated with each other must be expressed in terms of the same fundamental quantities''
.....

299 792 458 m =  9,192,631,770 Hz. =1 second
No, before you go any further your dimensional analysis is wrong.
Read what you quoted.
It means the dimensions on each side of the equals sign must be the same.
You cannot have m=Hz=s
You have to end up with the same units on each side of the equation
You have to start here before trying to go on.
if you have Hz on one side you must have Hz on the other which are also cycles/s

Huh?  if something is representative of the same quantity I do not see how this matters?

it says on google 1sec=   9,192,631,770 Hz.

it also says the speed of light is  299 792 458 m/s


so how is  299 792 458 m/ 9,192,631,770 Hz   an inequality?

I get 0.03261225571 something.







« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 14:26:38 by Thebox »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #38 on: 31/01/2016 14:54:04 »

so how is  299 792 458 m/ 9,192,631,770 Hz   an inequality?

I get 0.03261225571 something.
One apple is not equal to one orange Mr. Box and neither is a meter equal to a Hertz. You can't divide an apple by a orange and a meter can't be divided by a Hertz. Simple......................
« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 15:15:22 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #39 on: 31/01/2016 15:15:08 »

 9,192,631,770 Hz   an inequality?

I get 0.03261225571 something.
One apple is not equal to one orange Mr. Box and neither is a meter equal to a Hertz.

But if an apple has a 1 kg mass and an orange has a 1 kg mass, I seem to be missing any difference.

9,192,631,770 Hz /s


299 792 458 m/s

are both speeds.


 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #40 on: 31/01/2016 15:19:14 »


But if an apple has a 1 kg mass and an orange has a 1 kg mass, I seem to be missing any difference.

9,192,631,770 Hz /s


299 792 458 m/s

are both speeds.
Not true, m/s is the velocity of light but Hz is a frequency. Two different things my friend.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #41 on: 31/01/2016 15:24:53 »


But if an apple has a 1 kg mass and an orange has a 1 kg mass, I seem to be missing any difference.

9,192,631,770 Hz /s


299 792 458 m/s

are both speeds.
Not true, m/s is the velocity of light but Hz is a frequency. Two different things my friend.

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?

Just like the clock speed of my CPU in my computer or my memory clock speed

a CPU I can over-clock if I wished to and make 'time'' run faster

Like if my cpu ran at 100 hrtz a second I could over clock it to lets say 150 hrtz a second making time and a half

« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 15:36:36 by Thebox »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #42 on: 31/01/2016 15:37:00 »


and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?
Speed can be defined as an object covering a distance in a set amount of time. Enter the second in our calculations. However, the Hertz is defined as a cycle of events over a set amount of time. Where speed is reckoned using distance divided by time, the Hertz is reckoned by a number of events divided by time. Time is the only thing these two have in common.

Distances and cycles of events are as different as apples and oranges.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #43 on: 31/01/2016 15:38:33 »
Ir = I0/r2 in my universe. What happens in yours?

I can't read your equation, I presume (I ) is imaginary number?
Since your post asked about the intensity of light, a reasonable man would have concluded that I  in the answer was intensity. Conventionally we use lower case i or j to indicate an imaginary number. 
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #44 on: 31/01/2016 15:41:53 »

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?

No. Speed is distance/time. Frequency is number of occurrences/time. PLEASE STUDY DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS  lest others think you foolish.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #45 on: 31/01/2016 15:44:13 »
Ir = I0/r2 in my universe. What happens in yours?

I can't read your equation, I presume (I ) is imaginary number?
Since your post asked about the intensity of light, a reasonable man would have concluded that I  in the answer was intensity. Conventionally we use lower case i or j to indicate an imaginary number.

I nearly said intensity as well but I thought that was far to obvious and remembered i has imaginary number so said that . I will try to work out what you are saying now with that piece of maths.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #46 on: 31/01/2016 15:46:49 »

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?

No. Speed is distance/time. Frequency is number of occurrences/time. PLEASE STUDY DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS  lest others think you foolish.

Ok, so at what point in time do these occurrences start from? 
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #47 on: 31/01/2016 15:48:21 »


and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?
Speed can be defined as an object covering a distance in a set amount of time. Enter the second in our calculations. However, the Hertz is defined as a cycle of events over a set amount of time. Where speed is reckoned using distance divided by time, the Hertz is reckoned by a number of events divided by time. Time is the only thing these two have in common.

Distances and cycles of events are as different as apples and oranges.

The cycles still travel a distance from A to B?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #48 on: 31/01/2016 16:21:03 »


The cycles still travel a distance from A to B?
No,.......cycles don't travel.

Example: In alternating current, the reversal of current from positive to negative occurs 60 time a second. What you are confusing is; It's not the frequency that travels, it's the current. And current is a flow of electrons through a wire. While the current does travel a distance, the cycle of Hertz only defines the alternation of that direction.

You can't apply a value of distance to frequency because frequency only defines a change in direction, as in current flow, or some other change in a physical quality.

Until you finally accept the current definitions for these physical qualities, your confusion will only grow Mr. Box.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #49 on: 31/01/2016 16:59:00 »


The cycles still travel a distance from A to B?
No,.......cycles don't travel.

Example: In alternating current, the reversal of current from positive to negative occurs 60 time a second. What you are confusing is; It's not the frequency that travels, it's the current. And current is a flow of electrons through a wire. While the current does travel a distance, the cycle of Hertz only defines the alternation of that direction.

You can't apply a value of distance to frequency because frequency only defines a change in direction, as in current flow, or some other change in a physical quality.

Until you finally accept the current definitions for these physical qualities, your confusion will only grow Mr. Box.

I never said I did not accept present definitions, of some things anyway, But I will certainly question everything to look for an answer to everything.


I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?

added - hang on a nitting picking moment, I thought a frequency had a wave-length?



« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 19:45:31 by Thebox »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #49 on: 31/01/2016 16:59:00 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums